


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^K^^^^^^^l^^^^ ^ 




Class _BLS_4j4r^ 

Boole 

Gopyiiglit)J^ 



CO£»tIGHT DEPOSm 



Handbook for Bible 
Students 



Containing Valuable Quotations Relat- 
ing to the History, Doctrines, and 
Prophecies of the Scriptures 



1922 



Review and Herald Publishing Association 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 

South Bend, Ind. Peekskill, N. Y. 



..tj^^t^ 



Copyright, 1922 

Review and Herald Publishing Association 

Washington, D. C. 



APR 18 72 



§)CLA661351 



PUBLISHERS' PREFACE 

The " Bible Handbook " is a companion volume to the " Source 
Book for Bible Students," Indeed, the two might well have been com- 
bined in one had there not been an insistent demand for a book of 
convenient size for pulpit or desk use, and for easy carriage. Each 
of these books is complete in itself, but like a dictionary or an encyclo- 
pedia, one does not render the other less, but rather more, useful. Much 
of this matter is from sources not generally available, and all of it rep- 
resents wide reading and much patient study and research. 

As the work of preparing the " Source Book " advanced, it was 
found that there was much more source-matter of the greatest value 
in hand than could be used in a single volume of reasonable size. In 
the " Source Book " many brief, valuable excerpts from the most re- 
liable sources, covering a wide range of subjects, are made available; 
but it was found to be impossible to do justice in a single small volume 
to such subjects as chronology, the canon of Scripture, Bible versions, 
the development of Bible doctrine, religious denominations, the church 
councils, genealogy, Babylon, ancient and modern, etc. It was decided, 
therefore, to have two books, making accessible as many of these quo- 
tations as possible in the " Bible Handbo'ok." 

This matter had been collected not only by our editors working 
actively for fully ten years, but by other men also during many more 
years of careful reading and patient research; and they were willing 
to give to readers everywhere, for the mere taking, what they them- 
selves had gathered at no small expense in both time and money. 

In studying any given topic, almost any one frequently feels the 
need of a wider knowledge than is made possible by brief definitions 
and condensed statements. Those who use the " Source Book " will at 
times wish for something more, to give them a broader grasp of the 
questions there briefly treated. Such help they will find on many sub- 
jects in the " Handbook." 

The same alphabetical arrangement found so satisfactory in the 
" Source Book " 'has been followed in this companion volume, and the 
same care has been exercised in selecting, verifying, and reproducing. 
The references given are in every case as full as could be desired, while 
the information furnished as to authors quoted, publishers of books, etc., 
will, we believe, be found ample for all practical purposes. 

A complete index makes it easy not only to turn readily to any 
subject, but to find at once any particular subdivision of any subject. 
As in the " Source Book," the list of " Authorities Cited " is a very help- 
ful feature. 

That the " Bible Handbook " may be found all that we have en- 
deavored to make it, is the hope of 

THE PUBLISHERS. 



EXPLANATORY 

a, after the number of a verse, indicates the first part of the verse; 

6, used in the sarae way, indicates the second part. 

i. e., that is. 

e. g., for example. 

c. or cir. or circa should be read " about." 

u. s., ut supra, as above. 

Ihid., at the end of a quotation, indicates that it is found in the 
same place as the last preceding quotation. 

M., at the end of a quotation, indicates that it is found in the 
same book as the last preceding one, but in a different volume or on 
a different page. 

Transliterations of Hebrew and Greek have been supplied in brack- 
ets where necessary, and translations have been inserted in brackets 
where they were needed to make the meaning clear to those unac- 
quainted with the language used. 

In the ' transliteration of Greek words, e should be pronounced a, 
like e in " they." 

R. C. found in parentheses thus (R. C), means that the author 
quoted is a Roman Catholic, 

S. J., following a man's name, indicates that he is a member of 
the Society of Jesus, a Jesuit. 

Three periods found close together in a quotation show that a part 
of the quotation has been omitted. 

Variations in spelling the same proper names arise from the fact 
that the editors have followed the spelling used by the author of the 
quotation. 

Notes not signed " Eds." are by the authors quoted. 

Matter inserted in brackets has in most cases been supplied by the 
editors, but in some cases the authors quoted have inserted such matter, 
and this has been indicated by an editorial note. Words or sentences 
inclosed in parentheses are a part of the quotation. 



Handbook for Bible 
Students 



Abraham, Expedition of. — The monumental records of Babylonia 
bear marks of an interruption in the line of native kings, about the date 
which from Scripture we should assign to Chedorlaomer, and " point to 
Elymais (or Elam) as the country from which the interruption came." 
We have mention of a king, whose name is on good grounds identified 
with Chedorlaomer, as paramount in Babylonia at this time, — a king ap- 
parently of Elamitic origin; and this monarch bears in the inscriptions 
the unusual and significant title of Apda Martu, or " Ravager of the 
West." Our fragments of Berosus give us no names at this period; but 
his dynasties exhibit a transition at about the date required, which is in 
accordance with the break indicated by the monuments. We thus obtain 
a double witness to the remarkable fact of an interruption of pure Baby- 
lonian supremacy at this time; and from the monuments we are able to 
pronounce that the supremacy was transferred to Elam, and that under 
a king, the Semitic form of whose name would be Chedorlaomer, a great 
expedition was organized, which proceeded to the distant and then al- 
most unknown west, and returned after " ravaging " but not conquering 
those regions. — ■" The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture 
Records'' George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 73, 74. New York: John B. 
Alden, 1883. 

Abraham, Migration of. — The Elamite invasion of Ur was prob- 
ably one» cause of the migration of Terah and his son Abraham. The 
words of Joshua seem to indicate that Terah was an idolater: "Your 
fathers dwelt on the other side of the fiood in old time, even Terah, 
the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other 
gods," and if he were driven out of Ur because of a foreign invasion, 
and wanted to go to a city where the same god was worshiped as in Ur, 
he would have chosen Haran, for the moon god was worshiped in both. 
The fact that he named his son Haran before this, suggests a connection 
of the sort: "Haran died before his father Terah, in the land of his 
nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees." — " The BiMe and the British Museum," 
Ada R. Habershon, pp. 28, 29. London: Morgan and Scott, 1909. 

Abraham, Testimony or the Tablets Concerning. — Abu-ramu, or 
Abram, " the exalted father," Abraham's original name, is a name which 
also occurs on early Babylonian contract tablets. Sarah, again, is the 
Assyrian sarrat, " queen," while Milcah, the daughter of Haran, is the 
Assyrian miJcat, " princess." The site of Ur of the Chaldees, the birth- 
place of Abram, has been discovered, and excavations have been made 
among the ruins of its temples. The site is now called Mugheir, and 
lies on the western side of the Euphrates, on the border of the desert, 
immediately to the west of Erech. The chief temple of Ur was dedicated 

5 



AGNOSTICISM 



to the. moon god, and the Accadian inscriptions on its bricks, which re- 
cord its foundation, are among the earliest that we possess. It was, in 
fact, the capital of one of the oldest of the pre-Semitic dynasties, and its 
very name, Uru or Ur, is only the Semitic form of the Accadian eri, 
" city." It is probable that it had passed into the hands of the Semitic 
" Casdim " before the age of Abraham; at all events, it had long been 
the resort of Semitic traders, who had ceased to lead the roving life of 
their ancestors in the Arabian desert. 

From Ur, Abraham's father had migrated to Haran, in the northern 
part of Mesopotamia, on the high road which led from Babylonia anr" 
Assyria into Syria and Palestine. Why he should have migrated to so 
distant a city has been a great puzzle, and has tempted scholars to place 
both Ur and Haran in wrong localities; but here, again, the cuneiform 
inscriptions have at last furnished us with the key. As far back as the 
Accadian epoch, the district in which Haran was built belonged to the 
rulers of Babylonia; Haran was, in fact, the frontier town of the empire, 
commanding at once the highway into the west and the fords of the 
Euphrates; the name itself was an Accadian one signifying "the road;" 
and the deity to whom it was dedicated was the moon god of Ur. The 
symbol of this deity was a conical stone, with a star above it, and gems 
with this symbol engraved upon them may be seen in the British 
Museum, [pp. 44, 45] . . . 

When Abraham went down into Egypt, the empire was already very 
old. Its history begins with Menes, who united the independent states 
of the Nile Valley into a single kingdom, and established his capital at 
Memphis. The first six dynasties of kings, who reigned 1,478 years, rep- 
resent what is called the Old Empire. It was under the monarchs of 
the fourth dynasty that the pyramids of Gizeh were built; and at no 
time during its later history did the art and culture of Egypt reach 
again so high a level as it did under the Old Empire. . . . But the Mid- 
dle Empire, as it has been termed, did not last long. Semitic invaders 
from Canaan and Arabia overran the country, and established their seat 
at Zoan or Tanis. For 511 years they held the Egyptians in bondage, 
though the native princes, who had taken refuge in the south, gradually 
acquired more and more power, until at last, under the leadership of 
Aahmes, or Amosis, the founder of the eighteenth dynasty, they suc- 
ceeded in driving the hated foreigners out. These foreigners are known 
to history as the Hyksos, or Shepherds, Hyksos being the Egyptian hiJc 
shasu, " prince of the Shasu," or " Bedouins." The name which they 
bear upon the monuments is Menti. 

It must have been while the Hyksos monarchs were holding their 
court at Zoan that Abraham entered the land. He found there men of 
Semitic blood, like himself, and speaking a Semitic language. A wel- 
come was assured him, and he had no need of an interpreter. But the 
Hyksos kings had already begun to assume Egyptian state and to adopt 
Egyptian customs. In place of the Semitic shalat, " ruler," the title by 
which their first leaders had been known, they had borrowed the Egyp- 
tian title of Pharaoh. Pharaoh appears on the monuments as pir-aa, 
" great house," the palace in which the king lived being used to denote 
the king himself, just as in our own time the " porte," or gate, of the 
palace has become synonymous with the Turkish sultan. — < " Fresh Light 
from the Ancient Monuments,'' A. H. Sayce, M. A., pp. 44, 45, 48, 49. 
London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. 

Agnosticism, A Virtuai, Denial of God. — The agnostic claims 
neither to assert nor deny the existence of God. Virtually he denies in 
claiming that we cannot know God. For, as has been well argued, if 
there be a God, some evidence of him must necessarily exist. God is 



AHASUERUS — XERXES 7 

too all-pervading, things are too dependent upon him, for us to discover 
no traces of him. It would have been impossible for a God to cover 
up his tracks so completely that beings possessed of reasoning powers 
would find none. The stamp of the maker is on all products. The 
higher the quality of work, the more convincing and distinctive are 
the marks of the workmanship. God could not conceal himself entirely 
behind his works. 

Underlying the agnostic theory is the problem of knowledge which 
the purpose and limits of this work do not admit of our taking up for 
full discussion. It is assumed here that we live in an honest universe, 
that our faculties correspond to the world about us. If this is not 
true, then all reasoning on all subjects is vain. The consistent agnostic 
does not and never did exist. He could not make any assertion what- 
ever if he were consistent. For if our faculties are unreliable, his 
dogma of universal doubt is itself much to be doubted. — " Why Is- 
Christianity True? " E. Y. MulUns, D. D., LL. D., pp. 62, 53. PhilOr 
delphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. 

Ahasuerus, Hebrew Equivalent of Xerxes. — The name Ahasuerus 
is undoubtedly the proper Hebrew equivalent for the Persian word which 
the Greeks represented by Xerxes. . . . The Ahasuerus of Esther cor- 
responds in all respects to the Greek portraiture of Xerxes, which 
is not (be it observed) the mere picture of an Oriental despot, but 
has various peculiarities which distinguish it even from the other 
Persian kings, and which, I think it may be said, individualize it. Nor 
is there, as might so easily have been the case, were the book of Esther 
a romance, any contradiction between its facts and those which the 
Greeks have recorded of Xerxes. The third year of his reign, when 
Ahasuerus makes his great feast at Shushan (or Susa), to his nobles, 
was a year which Xerxes certainly passed at Susa, and one wherein it 
is likely that he kept open house for " the princes of the provinces," 
who would from time to time visit the court in order to report on the 
state of their preparations for the Greek war. The seventh year, 
wherein Esther is made queen, is that which follows the return of 
Xerxes from Greece, where again we know from the best Greek au- 
thority that he resumed his residence at Susa. — " The Historical Evi- 
dences of the Truth of the Scripture Records,'' George RawUnson, M. 
A., pp. 160, 161. New York: John B. Alden, 1883. 

Ahasuerus, Identified with Xerxes. — There seems to be little 
reasonable doubt that we should identify the Ahasuerus of Esther with 
the well-known Xerxes, who reigned over Persia from 485 to 465 b. c, 
and who made the great expedition against Greece that culminated 
in the defeat of the Persian forces at Salamis and Plataea. If Esther 
be taken as equivalent to Ishtar, it may well be the same as the Ames- 
tris of Herodotus, which in Babylonian would be Ammi-Ishtar, or 
Ummi-Ishtar. Amestris is said to have been the daughter of Otanes, 
a distinguished general of Xerxes, and the granddaughter of Sisamnes, 
a notorious judge, who was put to death with great cruelty by the king 
because of malfeasance in office. Sisamnes may be in Babylonian 
Shamash-ammanu-[shallim]. If he were the brother and Otanes the 
nephew of Mordecai, we can easily account for the ease with which 
the latter and his ward Esther were advanced and confirmed in their 
positions at the court of Xerxes. 

An Ahasuerus is mentioned in Ezra 4: 6 as one to whom some per- 
sons unnamed wrote an accusation against Judah and Jerusalem. Ewald 
and others have suggested that this Ahasuerus was Cambyses, the son 
and successor of Cyrus. It seems to be more probable that Xerxes, the 



8 AMRAPHEL — HAMMURABI 

son and successor of Darius Hystaspis, is meant, first, because in 
the following verse, Artaxerxes, the son and successor of Xerxes, is 
mentioned; and secondly, because we have no evidence whatever that 
Cambyses was ever called Ahasuerus, whereas there is absolute cer- 
tainty that the Persian Khshayarsha, the Hebrew 'dhashwerosh, the 
Greek Assoueros or Xerxes, and the Latin Ahasuerus, are the exact 
equivalents of one another. . . . An Ahasuerus is said in Daniel 9: 1 
to have been the father of Darius the Mede, and to have been of the 
seed of the Medes. It is probable that this Ahasuerus is the same as 
the Uvakhshatara of the Persian recension of the Behistun inscription, 
which in the Babylonian is Umaku'ishtar, in the Susian Makishtarra, 
and in Herodotus Cyaxares. It will be noted that both the Greek Cyax- 
ares arid the Hebrew Akhashwerosh omit the preformative uva and the t 
of the Persian form Uvakhshatara. 

That this Median king had sons living in the time of Cyrus is 
shown by the fact that two rebel aspirants to the throne in the time of 
Darius Hystaspis claimed to be his sons, to wit: Fravartish, a Median, 
who lied, saying, " I am Khshathrita of the family of Uvakhshatara " 
(Behistun Inscription, col. II, v) ; and Citrantakhma, who said, "I am 
king in Sagartia of the family of Uvakhshatara" (id., II, xiv). If we 
accept the identification of Gubaru with Darius the Med6, then the 
latter may well have been another of his sons, at first a subking to 
Astyages the Scythian, as he was later to Cyrus the Persian. — The 
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited hy James Orr, M. A., 
D. D., Vol. I, art. ''Ahasuerus,'' pp. SO, 81. 

Amraphel, Hammurabi. — Khammu-rabi, like others of his dynasty, 
claimed divine honors, and was addressed by his subjects as a god. In 
Babylonian, ilu is " god," the Hebrew el, and Ammu-rapi ilu would be 
" Khammu-rabi, the god." Now Ammu-rapi ilu is letter for letter the 
Amraphel of Genesis. 

Thus the difficulty presented by the variant forms of the name of 
the king of Shinar, or Babylon, has disappeared with the progress of 
archeological knowledge. It is one more illustration of the fact that 
" critical " difficulties and objections commonly turn out to be the 
result of the imperfection of our own knowledge. Archeological re- 
search is constantly demonstrating how dangerous it is to question or 
deny the veracity of tradition or of an ancient record until we know all 
the facts. — " Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies,'' A. H. 
Sayce, LL. D., D. D., p. 60. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. 

Amraphel, Expedition of. — We read in the fourteenth chapter of 
Genesis that " in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of 
Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tid'al king of nations (Goy- 
yim) ; that these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha 
king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Ze- 
boiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar. . . . Twelve years they 
served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled." And 
in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with 
him, and smote " the Amorites of Canaan as far south as the later 
Kadesh-barnea." 

There are several points worthy of notice in this narrative. Though 
it is dated in the reign of a king of Babylonia, the leader of the forces, 
and the suzerain to whom the Canaanitish princes were subject, was a 
king of Elam. Elam, therefore, must have been the predominant power 
at the time, and the Babylonian king must have been its vassal. The 
narrative nevertheless is dated in the reign of the Babylonian king, and 



ANTICHRIST, VICE-CHRIST 9 

not in that of the king of Elam, and it is to the reign of the Baby- 
lonian king that the events described in it are attached. Babylonia, 
however, was not a united country; there was another king, Arioch of 
Ellasar, who divided with Amraphel of Shinar the government of it, 
and like Amraphel acknowledged the supremacy of Elam. Finally the 
" nations," whoever they were, were also subject to Elam, as well as 
the distant province of Canaan. 

Now let us turn to the contemporaneous monuments of Babylonia, 
and see what they have to tell us in regard to the very period to which 
the book of Genesis refers. Elam, we find, had conquered Babylonia, 
and the sovereigns of Babylonia, accordingly, had become the vassals 
of the Elamite king. Along with the conquest has gone the division of 
Babylonia into two kingdoms; while Khammu-rabi, or Ammu-rapi, was 
reigning at Babylon, — the Biblical Shinar in the north, — Eri-Aku, the 
son of an Elamite prince, was ruling at Larsa — the Biblical Ellasar — 
in the south. 

Eastward, in the Kurdish mountains, were the Umman Manda, or 
" barbarian nations," of whom Tudghula appears to have been the 
chief. Canaan had long been, in name, if not always in reality, a Baby- 
lonian province; and when Babylonia passed under Elamite domina- 
tion, the Elamite king naturally claimed all the provinces that had been 
included in the Babylonian Empire. Indeed, Eri-Aku of Larsa gives his 
father Kudur-Nankhundi the title of " Father " or " Governor " of the 
land of the Amorites, the name under which Canaan was known at the 
time in Babylonia. 

Could there be closer agreement between the fragment of Old World 
history preserved in the book of Genesis and the revelations of the na- 
tive monuments? Even the proper names have been handed down in 
the Scriptural narrative with but little alteration. — " Monument Facts 
and Higher Critical Fancies,'' A. H. Sayce, LL. D., D. D., pp. 56-58. 
New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. 

Antichrist, Vice-Christ. — It was not pseudo-Christ, as of those false 
self-styled Christs (in professed exclusion and denial of Jesus Christ), 
that the Lord declared would appear in Judea before the destruction of 
Jerusalem, and who did in fact appear there and then; but was a name 
of new formation, expressly compounded, it might seem, by the divine 
Spirit for the occasion, and as if to express some idea through its ety- 
mological force which no older word could so well express, Antichrist; 
even as if he would appear some way as a vice-Christ;^ in the mystic 
temple, or professing church; and in that character act the usurper 
and adversary against Christ's true church and Christ himself. Nor did 
it fail to strengthen this anticipation, that the Gnostic heresiarchs and 
others did in a subordinate sense act that very part already, by setting 
Christ practically aside, while in mouth confessing him, and professing 
themselves in his place to be the power, wisdom, and salvation of 
God. — " Horw Apocalypticw,'" Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., Vol. I, pp. 67, 68, 
3d edition. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847. 

Antichrist, Early Catholic Fathers on (Its Rise to Follow the 
Division of the Roman Empire). — 

Tertullian (About A. D. 160-240) 

"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now 
hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way." What obstacle 



^ When avrl [anWi is compounded with a noun signifying an agent of any 
kind, or functionary, the compound word either signifies a vice-functionary, or a 
functionary of the same kind opposing, or sometimes both. 



10 ANTICHRIST, VIEWS ON 

is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scat 
tered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own 
ruins)? " And then shall be revealed the wicked one." — " On the Resur- 
rection of the Flesh," chap. 24; ''Ante-Nicene Fathers," Vol. Ill, p. 563. 
'New York,: Charles Berliner's Sons, 1908. 

The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only 
retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire. — " Apology," 
chap. 32; ''Ante-Nicene Fathers," Vol. Ill, p. 43. 

Lactantius (Early in the Fourth Century A. D.) 

The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will 
shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains, it ap- 
pears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital 
of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, 
which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end 
has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is thai 
city, that only, which still sustains all things. — " The Divine Institutes," 
looTc 7, chap. 25; "Ante-Nicene Fathers," Vol. VII, p. 220. 

Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 318-386) 

What temple then? He means the temple of the Jews which has 
been destroyed. For God forbid that it should be the one in which we 
are! [He means the church itself. — Editors.] — " Catechetical Lectures," 
sec. 15, On 2 Thess. 2:4; " Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Vol. VII, 
p. 108. New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1895. 

But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Ro- 
man Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is now 
drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, 
reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and 
after those an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall 
seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, 
" three he shall humble," and the remaining seven he shall keep in 
subjection to himself. — Id., p. 109. 

Ambrose (A. D. -398) 
After the failing or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall 
appear. — Quoted in ^'Dissertations on the Prophecies," Thomas Newton, 
D. D., p. 463. London: B. Blake, 1840. 

Chrysostom (A. D. -407) 

When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the 
Antichrist. — Eds.] shall come. And naturally. For as long as the. fear 
of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that 
is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the 
government both of man and of God. — Homily IV, on 2 Thess. 2:6-9; 
" Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Vol. XIII, p. 389. New York: 
Charles Scritner's Sons, 1905. 

Jerome (d. about A. D. 420) 

He that letteth is taken out of the way, and yet we do not realize 
that Antichrist is near. — Letter to Ageruchia, written alyout 409 A. D., 
Letter 123, sec. 16; " Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Vol. VI, p. 236. 
New York: Charles Scril>ner's Sons, 1912. 

Gregory I (Pope, A. D. 590-604) 

Whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called. Universal Priest, 
is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts 
himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led 



ANTICHRIST, VIEWS ON 11 

into error; for as that perverse one wishes to appear as God above all 
men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he 
extols himself above all other priests. — ''Epistles of St. Gregory the 
Great," Letter to Emperor Mauricius Augustus, against assumption of 
title by Patriarch of Constantinople; " Epistles of 8t. Gregory the Great," 
book 7, epis. 33; '' Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Vol. XII, p. 226. 
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912. 

Antichrist, English Reformers on. — The subject is however so 
important, the times so critical, and the views of the early Reformers 
and founders of our English Church on the point in question so often 
overlooked, if not misrepresented, that it seems to me desirable that the 
truth about it should be fully and plainly stated. ... 

1. Tyndale. (Martyred a. d. 1536.) 

" Now, though the Bishop of Rome and his sects give Christ these 
names, ... yet in that they rob him of the effect, and take the signifi- 
cations of his names unto themselves, and make of him but a hypo- 
crite, as they themselves be — they be the right Antichrists, and ' deny 
both the Father and the Son;' for they deny the witness that the Father 
bare unto the Son, and deprive the Son of all the power and glory that 
his Father gave him." — '" Works of Tyndale," Yol. II, p. 183, Parker 
edition. 

2. Cranmer. (Archbishop of Canterbury, 1533; martyred 1555.) 

" But the Romish Antichrist, to deface this great benefit of Christ, 
hath taught that his sacrifice upon the cross is not suflBcient hereunto, 
without another sacrifice devised by him, and made by the priest; or 
else without indulgences, beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such other 
pelfry, to supply Christ's imperfection: and that Christian people can- 
not apply to themselves the benefits of Christ's passion, but that the 
same is in the distribution of the Bishop of Rome; or else that by 
Christ we have no full remission, but be delivered only from sin, and 
yet remaineth temporal pain in purgatory due for the same; to be re- 
mitted after this life by the Romish Antichrist and his ministers, who 
take upon them to do for us that thing which Christ either would not 
or could not do. O heinous blasphemy, and most detestable injury 
against Christ! O wicked abomination in the temple of God! O pride 
intolerable of Antichrist, and most manifest token of the son of perdi- 
tion; extolling himself above God, and with Lucifer exalting his seat 
and power above the throne of God!" — Preface to Defence, etc., in 
" Works of Archbishop Cranmer," Vol. I, pp. 5-7, Parker edition. 

3. Latimer. (Bishop of Worcester, 1535-1539; martyred 1555.) 

" ' Judge not before the Lord's coming.' In this we learn to know 
Antichrist, which doth elevate himself in the church, and judgeth at his 
pleasure before the time. His canonizations, and judging of men before 
the Lord's judgment, be a manifest token of Antichrist. How can he 
know saints? He knoweth not his own heart." — Third Sermon before 
Edward VI, in " Works of Bishop Latimer," Vol. I, pp. 148, 149, Parker 
edition. 

4. Ridley. (Bishop of Rochester, 1547, and of London, 1550-1553; 
martyred 1555.) 

" The see [of Rome] is the seat of Satan; and the bishop of the same, 
that maintaineth the abominations thereof, is Antichrist himself indeed. 
And for the same causes this see at this day is the same which St. John 
calleth in his Revelation * Babylon,' or ' the whore of Babylon,' and 
' spiritually Sodoma and ^gyptus,' ' the mother of fornications and of 
the abominations upon the earth.' " — Farewell Letter, in " Works of 
Bishop Ridley," p. 415, Parker edition. 



12 ANTICHRIST, VIEWS ON 

5. Hooper. (Bishop of Gloucester, 1551-1554; martyred 1555.) 

" If godly Moses and his brother Aaron never acclaimed this title 
[to be God's vicar and lieutenant] in the earth, doubtless it is a foul 
and detestable arrogancy that these ungodly bishops of Rome attribute 
unto themselves to be the heads of Christ's church. . . . 

" Because God hath given this light unto my countrymen, which be 
all persuaded (or else God send them to be persuaded), that [neither] 
the Bishop of Rome, nor none other, is Christ's vicar upon the earth, it 
is no need to use any long or copious oration: it is so plain that it 
needeth no probation: the very properties of Antichrist, I mean of 
Christ's great and principal enemy, are so openly known to all men that 
are not blinded with the smoke of Rome, that they know him to be the 
beast that John describeth in the Apocalypse." — Declaration of Christ, 
chap. 3, in " Early Writings of Bishop Hooper,'" pp. 22-24, Parker edition. 

6. Philpot. (Archdeacon of Winchester; martyred 1555.) 

" I doubt not but you have already cast the price of this your build- 
ing of the house of God, that it is like to be no less than your life; for 
I believe (as Paul saith) that God hath appointed us in these latter days 
as sheep to the slaughter. Antichrist is come again; and he must make 
a feast to Beelzebub his father of many Christian bodies, for the re- 
storing again of his kingdom. Let us watch and pray, that the same 
day may not find us unready." — Letter to Rohert Glover, in " Writings 
of Archdeacon Philpot," p. 244, Parker edition. 

7. Bradford. (.Prebendary of St. Paul's, 1551; martyred 1555.) 

" This word of God, written by the prophets and apostles, left and 
contained in the canonical books of the Holy Bible, I do believe to eon- 
tain plentifully * all things necessary to salvation,' so that nothing, as 
necessary to salvation, ought to be added thereto. ... In testimony of 
this faith I render and give my life; being condemned, as well for not 
acknowledging the Antichrist of Rome to be Christ's vicar-general, and 
supreme head of his Catholic and universal church, here and elsewhere 
upon earth, as for denying the horrible and idolatrous doctrine of tran- 
substantiation, and Christ's real, corporal, and carnal presence in his 
Supper, under the forms and accidents of bread and wine." — Farewell to 
the City of London, in " Writings of Bradford," p. 435, Parker edition. 

8. Homilies of the Church of England. (Authorized, 1563.) 

" He ought therefore rather to be called Antichrist, and the suc- 
cessor of the Scribes and Pharisees, than Christ's vicar or St. Peter's 

successor." — " Homilies," Part 3, Homily of O'bedience, p. 114. Gam- 
hridge: Corrie, 1850. 

" Neither ought miracles to persuade us to do contrary to God's 
word; for the Scriptures have for a warning hereof foreshowed, that 
the kingdom of Antichrist shall be mighty ' in miracles and wonders,' 
to the strong illusion of all the reprobate. But in this they pass the 
folly and wickedness of the Gentiles." — "Homilies," Part 3, Homily 
Against Peril of Idolatry, p. 234. 

9. Jewel. (Bishop of Salisbury, 1559-1571.) 

" Many places of the Holy Scriptures, spoken of Antichrist, seemed 
in old times to be dark and doubtful; for that as then it appeared not 
unto what state and government they might be applied: but now, by 



ANTIOCHtrS EiPlPHANES IS 

the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome, to them that have 
eye^ to see, they are as clear and as open as the sun." — " Defence of the 
Apology," Vol. IV, p. 744. 

Note. — This section is found in the first edition of Rev. E. B. Elliott's 
" Horse Apocalypticse," Appendix IV, pp. 548-552, — Eds. 

Antiochus Epiphanes. — Epiphanes — that is, the " Illustrious " — 
was illustrious only for the grossness of his character and the wicked- 
ness of his conduct. At his accession, the high priesthood at Jerusalem 
was in the hands of a worthy man, named Onias. But a brother of his 
own having offered to pay Antiochus 360 talents for the oflBce, Onias was 
dispossessed, and the brother installed. .Onias fled to Egypt, where he 
built a temple at Heliopolis, and acted as high priest. The name of the 
usurper was Jesus; but not liking the Hebrew name, he changed it into 
the Greek name Jason. A Greek party now appears among the Jews. 
The sympathies of Jason were entirely with the Greeks; and to the 
utmost of his power he discountenanced the old Hebrew customs and 
religion. He even sent on one occasion an embassy to Tyre to take 
part in certain games in honor of the heathen god Hercules, and to offer 
sacrifices on his altar. Jason, in his turn, was supplanted by another 
brother, who took the Greek name of Menelaus, and was still more of a 
Greek than Jason. 

Persecutions at Jerusalem. — Antiochus now undertook an expedi- 
tion into Egypt, and was successful. While he was there, the Jews heard 
a report of his death, at which they showed signs of great joy. Hearing 
of this, Antiochus, on leaving Egypt, went to Jerusalem to chastise them. 
He besieged and took the sacred city, slew forty thousand Jews, and sold 
a like number as slaves. To show his contempt for the Jewish religion, 
he entered the holy of holies, sacrificed a sow on the altar of burnt 
offering, and sprinkled broth made from its flesh all over the building. 

On occasion of another expedition of Antiochus into Egypt, he was 
met by Popillius, a Roman ambassador, who ordered him peremptorily 
to quit the country. Antiochus hesitated, on which the ambassador, 
drawing a circle around him on the sand, declared that he should not 
leave it till he had given his answer. Antiochus felt that he had no 
alternative but to yield. It will readily be believed that as the haughty 
monarch returned homeward he was in no very gentle temper. To chas- 
tise the Jews, he sent to Jerusalem a general named Apolonius, who 
executed his commission with terrible rigor. Waiting till the people 
were all assembled in their synagogues on the Sabbath, he made a fright- 
ful massacre, slaying the men, seizing the women and children as slaves, 
demolishing the city and its walls, and building the fortress of Acra 
with the ruins. The remaining inhabitants fled in consternation, and 
for three years and a half, till Judas Maccabeus recovered the temple 
and purged it from its pollutions, the daily sacrifices and all the public 
festivals ceased to be observed. ' 

Not content with these atrocities, Antiochus began a furious perse- 
cution against the religion of the Jews. He issued an edict requiring 
all the people under his scepter to worship the same gods. The Samari- 
tans conformed to the decree, and allowed their temple on Mt. Gerizim 
to be dedicated to the Grecian Jove. The temple at Jerusalem was 
forcibly consecrated to the same heathen deity, and the statue of Jupiter 
Olympus was erected on the altar of burnt offering. Two Jewish women, 
that were found to have circumcised their children, were led through 
the streets with their children fastened to their necks, and cast head- 
long over the steepest part of the walls. At the feast of Bacchus, the 



14 APOCRYPHA 

god of wine, the Jews were forced to join, carrying ivy and taking part 
in the abominations of the festival. To observe any of the Jewish cus- 
toms was made a capital offense, — in short, the most rigorous measures 
were adopted absolutely to root out the Jewish faith. — " A Manual of 
Bible History;' Rev. William O. Blaikie, D. D., LL. D., pp. 393-395. 
London: T. Nelson & Sons, 1906. 

Apocrypha, As Usually Understood. — The word " apocrypha," as 
usually understood, denotes the collection of religious writings which 
the Septuagint and Vulgate (with trivial differences) contain in addi- 
tion to the writings constituting the Jewish and Protestant canon. 
This is not the original or the correct sense of the word, as will be 
shown, but it is that which it bears almost exclusively in modern 
speech. In critical works of the present day it is customary to speak of 
the collection of writings now in view as " the Old Testament Apocry- 
pha," because many of the books at least were written in Hebrew, the 
language of the Old Testament, and because all of them are much more 
closely allied to the Old Testament than to the New Testament. But 
there is a " New " as well as an " Old " Testament Apocrypha, consisting 
of Gospels, epistles, etc. Moreover, the adjective " apocryphal " is also 
often applied in modern times to what are now generally called " Pseu- 
depigraphical writings," so designated because ascribed in the titles to 
authors who did not and could not have written them (e. g., Enoch, 
Abraham, Moses, etc.). The persons thus connected with these books - 
are among the most distinguished in the traditions and history of Israel, 
and there can be no doubt that the object for which such names have 
been thus used is to add weight and authority to these writings. . . . 

The investigation which follows will show that when the word 
" apocryphal " was first used in ecclesiastical writings, it bore a sense 
virtually identical with " esoteric; " so that " apocryphal writings " 
were such as appealed to an inner circle and could not be understood by 
outsiders. The present connotation of the term did not get fixed until 
the Protestant Reformation had set in, limiting the Biblical canon to 
its present dimensions among Protestant churches. — The International 
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Yol. I, 
art. ''Apocrypha;' p. 179. 

Apocrypha, Value of. — The voice of prophecy was utterly hushed 
in this period [between the Testaments], but the old literary instinct 
of the nation asserted itself; it was part and parcel of the Jewish tra- 
ditions, and would not be denied. Thus in this period many writings 
were produced, which although they lack canonical authority, among 
Protestants at least, still are extremely helpful for a correct understand- 
ing of the life of Israel in the dark ages before Christ. 

a. The Apocrypha. — First of all among the fruits of this literary 
activity stand the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. It is enough 
here to mention them. They are fourteen in number: 1 and 2 Esdras, 
Tobit, Judith, 2 Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 
Song of the Three Holy Children, History of Susannah, Bel and the 
Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, 1 and 2 Maccabees. As 3 and 4 Maccabees 
fall presumably within the Christian era, they are not here enumerated. 
All these apocryphal writings are of the utmost importance for a cor- 
rect understanding of the Jewish problem in the day in which they were 
written. — 'Id., art. ''Between the Testaments;' p. 457. 

Apocrypha, Nor in the Early Canon of the Sorh^tubes. — The 
apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during 
the first four centuries of the Christian church. 



APOSTASY, THE GREAT 15 

They are not mentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made 
by Melito, bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor 
in those of Origan, in the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of 
Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerome, 
Rufinus, and others of the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canon- 
ical books recognized by the Council of Laodicea, held in the same cen- 
tury, whose canons were received by the Catholic Church; so that, as 
Bishop Burnet well observes, " we have the concurring sense of the 
whole church of God in this matter." To this decisive evidence against 
the canonical authority of the apocryphal books, we may add that they 
were never read in the Christian church until the fourth century, when, 
as Jerome informs us, they were read " for example of life and instruc- 
tion of manners, but were not applied to establish any doctrine; " and 
contemporary writers state that although they were not approved as 
canonical or inspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, 
Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens. 

As proof that they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth cen- 
tury, Augustine relates that when the book of Wisdom was publicly read 
in the church, it was given to the readers or inferior ecclesiastical offi- 
cers, who read it in a lower place than those books which were uni- 
versally acknowledged to be canonical, which were read by the bishops 
and presbyters in a more eminent and conspicuous manner. 

To conclude: Notwithstanding the veneration in which these books 
were held by the Western Church, it is evident that the same authority 
was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament; until the 
last Council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all 
(excepting the prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of 
Esdras) in the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the 
prophets. — "An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the 
Holy Scriptures,'' Thomas Hartwell Home, B. D., Vol. I, pp. 458, 459. 
London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

ApocrjTphal Books, Last of, Extant. — It is not wonderful that, 
besides those which are admitted to be canonical books of the New 
Testament, there were many others which also pretended to be authen- 
tic. ... In the ages following the apostles, the apocryphal writings, 
which were published under the names of Jesus Christ and his apostles, 
their companions, etc. (and which are mentioned by the writers of the 
first four centuries under the names of Gospels, epistles, acts, revela- 
tions, etc.), greatly increased. Most of them have long since perished, 
though some few are still extant. . . . The apocryphal books extant 
are: An Epistle from Jesus Christ to Abgarus; his Epistle, which (it 
is pretended) fell down from heaven at Jerusalem, directed to a priest 
named Leopas, in the city of Eris; the Constitutions of the Apostles; the 
Apostles' Creed; the Apostolical Epistles of Barnabas, Clemens or Clem- 
ent, Ignatius, and Polycarp; the gospel of the infancy of our Saviour; 
the gospel of the birth of Mary; the prot-evangelion of James; the gospel 
of Nicodemus; the Martyrdom of Thecla or Acts of Paul; Abdias's His- 
tory of the Twelve Apostles; the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans; the 
Six Epistles of Paul to Seneca, etc. — Id., p. 461. 

Apostasy, The Great, Multiplying Rites. — It is certain that to 
religious worship, both public and private, many rites were addecj, with- 
out necessity, and to the offense of sober and good men. The principal 
cause of this I readily look for in the perverseness of mankind, who are 
more delighted with the pomp and splendor of external forms and 
pageantry, than with the true devotion of the heart, and who despise 
whatever does not gratify their eyes and ears. But other and addi- 



16 ARAB AH 

tional causes may be mentioned, which, though they suppose no bad 
design, yet clearly betray indiscretion. 

First, There is good reason to suppose the Christian bishops mul- 
tiplied sacred rites for the sake of rendering the Jews and the pagans 
more friendly to them. For both these had been accustomed to nu- 
merous and splendid ceremonies from their infancy, and had no doubts 
that they constituted an essential part of religion. And when they saw 
the new religion to be destitute of such ceremonies, they thought it too 
simple, and therefore despised it. To obviate this objection, the rulers 
of the Christian churches deemed it proper for them to be more formal 
and splendid in their public worship. 

Secondly, The simplicity of the worship which Christians offered 
to the Deity, gave occasion to certain calumnies, maintained both by the 
Jews and the pagan priests. The Christians were pronounced atheists, 
because they were destitute of temples, altars, victims, priests, and all 
that pomp in which the vulgar suppose the essence of religion to con- 
sist. For unenlightened persons are prone to estimate religion by what 
meets their eyes. To silence this accusation, the Christian doctors 
thought they must introduce some external rites, which would strike 
the senses of people; so that they could maintain that they really had 
all those things of which Christians were charged with being destitute, 
though under different forms. — ''Institutes of Ecclesiastical History," 
Mosheim, book 1, cent. 2, 'part 2, chap. 4, sees. 1-3 (Vol. I, pp. 171, 172). 
London: Longman & Co., 1841. 

Apostasy, The Great, Adopting Heathen Philosophy. — The Chris- 
tian church came early, after the days of the apostles, under the influ- 
ence, not merely of the Greek language, but of the philosophy of the 
Greeks. The tendency in this direction was apparent even in the times 
of the apostles. It was against this very influence that Paul so often 
and earnestly warned the early Christians : " Beware lest any man spoil 
you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, . . . 
and not after Christ." "Avoid profane and vain babblings, and opposi- 
tions of science, falsely so called, which some professing, have erred con- 
cerning the faith." " I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled 
Eve, through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the 
simplicity that is in Christ." ... It was not long before the Grecian 
philosophy had become dominant and controlling. Their schools of lit- 
erature, and especially of theology, were Grecian schools. Grecian phi- 
losophers became their teachers and leaders. — " The Gospel of Life in 
the Syriac New Testament," Prof. J. H. Pettingell, p. 9. 

Arabah. — This word indicates in general a barren district, but is 
specifically applied in whole or in part to the depression of the Jordan 
valley, extending from Mt. Hermon to the Gulf of Akabah. In the 
Authorized Version it is transliterated only once (Joshua 18: 18) de- 
scribing the border of Benjamin. Elsewhere it is rendered " plain." 
But in the Revised Version it is everywhere transliterated. South of 
the Dead Sea the name is still retained in Wady el-Arabah. In Deut. 
1:1; 2:8 (Authorized Version, "plain") the southern portion is 
referred to; in Deut. 3: 17; 4: 49; Joshua 3: 16; 11: 2; 12: 3, and 2 
Kings 14: 25 the name is closely connected with the Dead Sea and the 
Sea of Chinnereth (Gennesaret). The allusions to the Arabah in Deut. 
11: 30;. Joshua 8: 14; 12: 1; 18: 18; 2 Sam. 2: 29; 4: 7; 2 Kings 25: 4; 
Jer. 39: 4; 52: 7, indicate that the word was generally used in its most 
extended sense, while in Joshua 11: 16 and 12: 8 it is represented as 
one of the great natural divisions of the country. — The International 
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. I, art. "Arabah," p. 211. 



ARCHEOLOGY 17 

Archeology, Results of the Work of the Excavator. — For a hun- 
dred years or more the explorer and the excavator have been busy in 
many parts of the world. They have brought to light monuments and 
texts that have in many cases revolutionized our conceptions of his- 
tory, and have in other cases thrown much new light on what was pre- 
viously known. 

In no part of the world have these labors been more fruitful than in 
the lands of the Bible. In Egypt and Babylonia vistas of history have 
been opened to view that were undreamed of before- exploration began. 
The same is true for that part of the history of Palestine which ante- 
dates the coming of Israel. Information has also been obtained which 
illumines later portions of the history, and makes the Biblical narrative 
seem much more vivid. It is now possible to make real to oneself the 
details of the life of the Biblical heroes, and to understand the prob- 
lems of their world as formerly one could not do. Exploration has also 
brought to light many inscriptions in the various countries that confirm 
or illuminate the traditions, history, poetry, and prophecy of the Bible. 
— ''Archeology and the Bible," George A. Barton, Ph. D., LL. D., 
Preface, p. Hi. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, copy- 
right 1916. 

Archeology, Emphasis of, upon Inspiration. — Not the least service 
that archeology has rendered has been the presentation of a new back- 
ground against which the inspiration of the Biblical wj^iters stands out 
in striking vividness. Often one finds traditions in Babylonia identical 
with those embodied in the Old Testament, but they are so narrated 
that no such conception of God shines through them as shines through 
the Biblical narrative. Babylonians and Egyptians pour out their 
hearts in psalms with something of the same fervor and pathos as 
the Hebrews, but no such vital conception of Grod and his oneness gives 
shape to their faith and brings the longed-for strength to the spirit. 
Egyptian sages developed a social conscience comparable in many 
respects with that of the Hebrew prophets, but they lacked the vital 
touch of religious devotion which took the conceptions of the prophets 
out of the realm of individual speculation and made them the working 
ethics of a whole people. Archeology thus reinforces to the modern 
man with unmistakable emphasis the ancient words, " Men spake from 
God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1: 21. — Id., Preface, 
pp. iv, V. 

Archeology, Effect of, uton the New Testament. — The modern 
archeological discoveries have made the old criticisms of New Testament 
" mistakes " seem very immature. The discoveries indeed have con- 
firmed in a most remarkable way the general and constant accuracy of 
the New Testament writers in their reports of first-century facts and 
customs. — Article 'by Camden M. Cobern, D. D., Litt. D., " The New 
Archeological Discoveries and the New Testament Text," in the Biblical 
Review, January, 1920, New York. 

Arminianlsm. — The " Remonstrance " of 1610 summed up in five 
articles the Arminian modifications of orthodox Calvinism. James 
Arminius had died in 1609. His views were maintained by Episcopius 
(Bisschop), his successor at Leyden, and by the preacher Uytenbogaert, 
and were supported by such eminent jurist-statesmen as Barneveldt 
and Grotius. The " Remonstrance " was drawn up by Uytenbogaert for 
presentation to the Estates of Holland and West Friesland, and was 
signed by forty-six pastors. It represented an even more serious and 
determined attempt than Amyraldism — its kindred though independent 
2 



18 ARMINIANISM 

French counterpart — to break down the rigor of supralapsarian and 
infralapsarian Calvinism. Though condemned by the weighty, if one- 
sided, Synod of Dort, and driven by force from Holland or suppressed 
for a time, it exerted an extremely widespread influence, especially 
throughout the English-speaking world, pervading the Anglican Church 
and its great Methodist offshoot. It presents the recoil of the human 
heart from the stern inferences of the head, from the darker aspects of 
Scripture teaching and of everyday observation of life. Its weapons 
against scholastic logic and learning are sentiment and humane feeling. 
It first denies five current propositions, then affirms five others, ending 
with the claim that the latter are " agreeable to the word of God, 
tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for sal- 
vation, so that it is not necessary or edifying to rise higher or to 
descend deeper." 

The first article affirms that election is conditional upon, and 
inseparable from, divine foreknowledge of faith and perseverance, and 
reprobation upon foreknowledge of unbelief and sin persisted in. 

The second affirms that the atonement through Christ's death is uni- 
versal and sufficient for all, though not necessarily accepted and actu- 
ally effective in every case, denying any a priori limitation of it to elect 
persons. 

The third affirms that fallen man cannot accomplish good or 
attain to saving faith unless regenerated through the Holy Spirit. 

The fourth ienies that grace is irresistible, compelling the elect 
though withheld from the reprobate. 

The fifth denies that recipients of irresistible grace, those who 
through faith are " Christo insiti ac proinde Spiritus eius vivificantis 
participes [ingrafted into Christ and therefore partakers of his life- 
giving Spirit]," are unable to fall away and necessarily persevere to 
the end, and affirms that it is impossible to say from Scripture whether 
the regenerate can ever fall away. — "A History of Greeds and Confes- 
sions of Faitn," William A. Curtis, B. D., D. Litt., pp. 239, 240. New 
York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 1912. 

Arminiaiiism and Methodism. — As the church in Holland became 
less and less distinctively Calvinist, the separate testimony of the 
Remonstrants became the less necessary, and save at Rotterdam and 
Amsterdam they are now few in numbers. Wesley's movement gave 
the name at least of Arminianism in England a new lease of life, and a 
modified Arminianism is associated with the Methodists, as distinct 
from the Calvinism of other sects. — Nelson's Encyclopedia, Vol. I, art. 
''Arminianism,'^ p. S71A. 

Artaxerxes, SE^ enth Year of. — Sir Isaac Newton, the great mathe- 
matician and scientist, made an analysis of Greek and other records 
bearing witness to 457 b. c. as the seventh year of Artaxerxes. For the 
famous discoverer of the law of gravitation was an earnest student of 
prophecy, and of that greatest of all sciences — the science of salva- 
tion. In his work on the prophecies of Daniel, he gives various in- 
dependent lines of proof for the date 457 b. c. as the seventh year of 
Artaxerxes, whence the prophetic period was to be reckoned. Reference 
to three of these lines of evidence must suffice: 

1. Newton shows that soon after an anniversary of his accession, 
Xerxes began to march his army over the Hellespont into Europe, " in 
the end of the fourth year of the seventy-fourth Olympiad," which ended 
in June, 480 b. c. Newton continues: 

" In the autumn, three months after, on the full moon, the sixteenth 
day of the month of Munychion, was the battle of Salamis, and a little 
after that an eclipse of the sun, which, by the calculation, fell on Octo- 



ARTAXERXES, SEVENTH YEAR OF 19 

ber 2.- His [Xerxes'] sixth year, therefore, began a little before June, 
suppose In spring, An. J, P. [Julian period] 4234 [b. c. 480], and his 
first year consequently in spring, An. J. P. 4229 [b. c. 485], as above. 
Now he reigned almost twenty-one years, by the consent of all writers. 
Add the seven months of Artabanus, and the sum will be twenty-one 
years and about four or five months, which end between midsummer 
and autumn. An. J. P. 4250 [b. c. 464]. At this time, therefore, began 
the reign of his successor, Artaxerxes, as was to be proved." ("Obser- 
vations upon the Prophecies," Sir Isaac Newton, part 1, chap. 10.) 

2. Again, Newton takes the writings of Africanus, a Christian of 
the third century: 

■" The same thing is also confirmed by Julius Africanus, who in- 
forms us out of former writers that the twentieth year of Artaxerxes 
was the one hundred fifteenth year from the beginning of the reign of 
Cyrus in Persia, and fell in with An. 4, Olympiad 83 [the fourth year 
of the eighty-third Olympiadi]. It began, therefore, with the Olympic 
year soon after the summer solstice, An. J. P. 4269 [b. c. 445]. Subduct 
nineteen years, and his first year will begin at the same time of the 
year An. J, P. 4250 [b. c. 464], as above." — Ibid. 

3. Another of Newton's arguments in proof of the date, the last 
that we have space to refer to, is based on testimony as to the death of 
Artaxerxes. It will be more easily followed if we quote more fully 
than Sir Isaac Newton does from the original authority cited; and 
indeed the story is an interesting one apart from its contribution to 
chronology. It is from the "History of the Peloponnesian War," — 
really a contest between Sparta and Athens, — written by Thucydides. 
Writing of the winter season of 425-424 b. c, he says: 

" During the ensuing winter, Aristides, son of Archippus, one of the 
commanders of the Athenian vessels which collected tribute from the 
allies, captured at Eion, upon the [river] Strymon, Artaphernes, a Per- 
sian, who was on his way from the king [Artaxerxes] to Sparta. He 
was brought to Athens, and the Athenians had the dispatches which he 
was carrying, and which were written in the Assyrian character, trans- 
lated. . . . The chief point was a remonstrance addressed to the Lace- 
daemonians by the king, who said that he could not understand what 
they wanted. ... If they meant to make themselves intelligible, he 
desired them to send to him another embassy with the Persian envoy. 
Shortly afterward the Athenians sent Artaphernes in a trireme [gal- 
ley] to Ephesus, and with him an embassy of their own; but they found 
that Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes, had recently died; for the embassy 
arrived just at that time." (" History of the Peloponnesian War," Thu- 
cydides, book 2, par. 50, Jowett's translation, p. 278.) 

As all this happened " during the winter," it is evident that the 
envoys from Greece on the way to Artaxerxes' court in Persia, and the 
embassy from Persia announcing the king's death, met in Ephesus (in 
Asia Minor) in the early months of 424 b. c; and that the death of 
Artaxerxes must have occurred toward the end of 425 b. c. Sir Isaac 
Newton shows that his precise reign was thirty-nine years and three 
months. Counting this time back from the end of 425 b. c, the begin- 
ning of his reign comes in the latter half of 464 b. c, just as we have 
seen by other witnesses, and the seventh year of his reign would be 
457 b. c. 



1 " An Olympiad is a cycle of four years, and the years are reckoned as the 
first, second, third, or fourth years of any given Olympiad. The Olympic games 
consisted of various athletic sports, a record of which was kept at Elis, and the 
names of the victors inserted in it by the presidents of the games. These regis- 
ters are pronounced accurate by ancient historians, and are complete, with the 
exception of the 211th Olympiad, " the only one," says Pausanias, " omitted in 
the register of the Eleans." — "Analysis of Sacred Chronology/' 8. Bliss, p. 23. 
Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Press Publishing House, 1887. 



20 ARTAXERXES, SEVENTH YEAR OF 

This is but a rough calculation, based on an estimate of the rea- 
sonable time elapsing in the journeying of the embassies. It is related 
to the exact chronology of Ptolemy's Canon only a^ the " log " reckon- 
ing of a ship is related to the sure observation by the sun or stars in 
determining the ship's position. But it is interesting as showing how 
fragmentary details of chronological history join in confirming an 
important date in prophecy. 

The testimony of the Olympiads agrees with that of Ptolemy's 
Canon in fixing the year period within which Artaxerxes began to reign. 
And just where the testimony of history is uncertain — as to the season 
of the year — the voice of Inspiration speaks. 

The year in which the great commission was granted to Ezra to 
restore and build Jerusalem was 457 b. c. — " The Hand of God in His- 
tory," William A. Spicer, pp. 57-60. Washington, D. C: Review and Her- 
ald PuMishing Association, copyright 1913. 

Artaxerxes, Seventh Year of, Date of. — Now, what is the testimony 
of the canon to the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when the 
decree to Ezra went forth? Ptolemy, of course, knew nothing of the 
Christian era and the reckoning of years before Christ and after Christ. 
He began with the era of Nabonassar. Of the origin of this system, 
Dr. Hales ("Chronology," Vol. I, p. 155) says: 

" Nabonassar [king of Babylon], having collected the acts of his 
predecessors, destroyed them, in order that the computation of the 
reigns of the Chaldean kings might be made from himself. It began, 
therefore, with the reign of Nabonassar, Feb. 26, b. c. 747." 

That day was the Egyptian Thoth, or New Year. It begins the 
year 1 of Ptolemy's Canon, which thenceforward numbers off the years, 
1, 2, 3, etc., straight on through history, telling in what year of 
Nabonassar's era each king began to reign, always counting full years 
from New Year to New Year. The canon does not deal with parts of 
years. It is like a rigid measuring rule, just three hundred sixty-five 
days long, laid down over history, marking the years and numbering 
them from that first New Year. Knowing the starting-point, Feb. 26, 
747 B. c, it is but a matter of computation, or measuring, to tell in 
what year of our modern reckoning a given year of the canon falls. 

According to Ptolemy, the year in which Artaxerxes began to reign 
was the two hundred eighty-fourth year of the canon. This year 284, 
according to our calendar, began Dec. 17, 465 b. c.i 

But according to the rule of Ptolemy, this means only that some- 
where between Dec. 17, 465, and Dec. 17, 464, the king came to the 
throne. At whatever time in the year a king came to the throne, his 
reign was counted from the New Year preceding. To illustrate: If we 
were following that plan now of recording the reigns of kings, — by 
years only, not counting parts of years, — and a king should come to 
the throne in July, 1913, the year of his accession would be set down as 
beginning with the New Year, Jan. 1, 1913, for in the year then opening 
he began to reign. That was Ptolemy's method: Dr. Hales ("Chronol- 
ogy," Vol. I, p. 171) states the rule: 

" Each, king's reign begins at the Thoth, or New Year's Day, be- 
fore his accession, and all the odd months of his last year are included 
in the first year of his successor." . . . 



1 As the exact 365-day year of the Egyptians made no allowance for leap 
year, the Egyptian Thoth, or New Year, drops back in our calendar about a day 
every four years. So that, while it fell on February 26 in 747 b. c, where 
the years of the canon begin, in this two hundred eighty-fourth year of the 
canon it falls on Dec. 17, 465. 



ASHERAH 21 

Therefore, inasmuch as the canon shows only that Artaxerxes be- 
gan his reign sometime in the Nabonassean year beginning Dec. 17, 
465 B. c, and ending Dec. 17, 464, the question is. At what time of the 
year did he come to the throne? With this answered, we can readily 
determine the seventh year of Artaxerxes, as the Scripture would 
reckon it from the time when he actually began to reign. And here 
Inspiration itself gives the answer. 

The record of Nehemiah and Ezra fully establishes the fact that 
Artaxerxes began his reign at the end of the summer, or in the autumn. 
Neh. 1:1; 2:1; Ezra 7: 7-9. i His first year, therefore, was from the 
autumn of 464 b, c. to the autumn of 463 b. c, and his seventh year was 
from the autumn of 458 b, c. to the autumn of 457 b. c. 

Under Ezra's commission the people began to go up to Jerusalem 
in the spring of that year, 457 b. c. (in the first month, or April), and 
they "came to Jerusalem in the fifth month" (August). Ezra 7, 8, 9. 
Ezra and his associates soon thereafter " delivered the king's commis- 
sions unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the 
river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God," Ezra 8: 36. 

With this delivery of the commissions to the king's oflicers, the 
commandment to restore and to build had fully gone forth. And from 
this date, 457 b. c, extend the 70 weeks, or 490 years, allotted to the 
Jewish people. " Seventy weeks are determined [cut off] upon thy 
people and upon thy holy city, . . . from the going forth of the com- 
mandment to restore and to build Jerusalem." Dan. 9: 24, 25. 

This 490-year period, measuring from 457 b. c. to 34 a. d., touches 
at its close the years of the public ministry and crucifixion of Christ, 
and the turning of the apostles to the Gentiles. 

At the same date, 457 b. c, necessarily began the longer period of 
2300 years, from which the shorter period was " determined," or cut off. 
And this long prophetic period was to reach to " the time of the end," 
to "the cleansing of the sanctuary," the beginning of the closing min- 
istry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, preparatory to his second 
coming in glory. — " The Hand of God in History,'' William A. Spicer, 
pp. 44-49. 

Asherah. — Like so much else in Canaanitish religion, the name and 
worship of Asherah were borrowed from Assyria. She was the wife 
of the war god Asir, whose name was identified with that of the city of 
Assur with the result that he became the national god of Assyria. 
Since Asirtu was merely the feminine form of Asir, " the superintend- 
ent " or " leader," it is probable that it was originally an epithet of 
Istar (Ashtoreth) of Nineveh. In the West, however, Asherah and 
Ashtoreth came to be distinguished from one another, Asherah being 
exclusively the goddess of fertility, whereas Ashtoreth passed into a 
moon goddess. 



1 The texts prove that the king came to the throne after midsummer, 
toward or fully in the autumn, so that the actual years of his reign would 
run from autumn to autumn. Nehemiah 1 : 1 begins the record : " In the month 
Chisleu, in the twentieth year." Nehemiah 2 : 1 continues : " It came to pass 
in the month Nisan, in the ttventieth year of Artaxerxes." Thus it is plain 
that in the actual year of the king's reign the month Chisleu came first in 
order, and then Nisan. Chisleu was the ninth month of the Jewish sacred 
year. Zech. 7 : 1. The year began in the spring. In our calendar Chisleu is, 
roughly, December, or, strictly, from the latter part of November to the 
latter part of December. Nisan is the first month, April. And these months — 
November (latter part), December, April — in the order named by the prophet, 
came in the first year of the king, of course, the same as in his twentieth year. 
And in the same year also came the fifth month, August ; for Ezra 7 : 7-9 shows 
that the first and fifth months also fell in the same year of his reign. Then 
we know of a certainty that his reign began somewhere between August and 
the latter part of November. 



22 ASHTORETH 

In Assyrian, asirtu, which appears also under the forms asrdtu, 
esreti (plural), and asm, had the further signification of "sanctuary." 
Originally Asirtu, the wife of Asir, and asirtu, " sanctuary," seem to 
have had no connection with one another, but the identity in the pro- 
nunciation of the two words caused them to be identified in significa- 
tion, and as the tree trunk or cone of stone which symbolized Asherah 
was regarded as a Beth-el, or " house of the deity," wherein the goddess 
was immanent, the word Asirtu, Asherah, came to denote the symbol 
of the goddess. The trunk of the tree was often provided with branches, 
and assumed the form of the tree of life. It was as a trunk, however, 
that it was forbidden to be erected by the side of " the altar of Jehovah." 
. . . The existence of numerous symbols in each of which the goddess 
was believed to be immanent, led to the creation of numerous forms of 
the goddess herself, which, after the analogy of the Ashtaroth, were 
described collectively as the Asherim. — The International Standard 
Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. "Ashe- 
rah," pp. 368, 269. 

Ashtoreth. — Ashtoreth, or Astarte, is a word whereof no satisfac- 
tory account has as yet been given. It seems to have no Semitic deri- 
vation, and may perhaps have been adopted by the Semites from an ear- 
lier Hamitic population. Originally a mere name for the energy or 
activity of God, Ashtoreth came to be regarded by the Phoenicians as a 
real female personage, a supreme goddess, on a par with Baal, though 
scarcely worshiped so generally. In the native mythology she was the 
daughter of Uranos (heaven), and the wife of El, or Saturn. The espe- 
cial place of her worship in Phoenicia was Sidon. In one of her aspects 
she represented the moon, and bore the head of a heifer with horns 
curving in a crescent form, whence she seems to have been sometimes 
called Ashtoreth Karnaim, or " Astarte of the two horns." But, more 
commonly, she was a nature goddess, " the great mother, the represen- 
tation of the female principle in nature, and hence presiding over the 
sexual relation, and connected more or less with love and with volup- 
tuousness. The Greeks regarded their Aphrodite, and the Romans their 
Venus, as her equivalent. One of her titles was "Queen of Heaven;" 
and under this title she was often worshiped by the Israelites. — " The 
Religions of the Ancient World," George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 106, 107. 
New York: Hurst & Co. 

Assyria, Kings of. — In the Scriptures we find the names of the 
following Assyrian kings: 

Pul, contemporary with Menahem. 2 Kings 15: 19 (b. c. 771-760). 

Tiglath'-Pileser, with Ahaz. 2 Kings 16: 7-10 (dr. 738). 

Shalmaneser, with Hoshea and Hezekiah. 2 Kings 17: 4 (723). 

Sargon. Isa. 20: 1 (dr. 718). 

Sennacheril). 2 Kings 18: 13 (b. c. 713). 

Esarhaddon, his son. 2 Kings 19: 37. (The same, or another of the 
same name, in Ezra 4: 2.) — " Chronology of the Holy Scriptures," Henry 
Browne, M. A., p. 546. London: John W. Parker, 1844. 

Augsburg Confession, Notes on. — The Augsburg Confession was 
drawn up to be presented to Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg, 1530. 
Charles inherited united Spain, Naples, the Netherlands, and Austria, 
and was elected emperor of the Holy Roman Empire 1519, taking the 
title of Charles V. Charles was a Catholic and took the side of the 
Papacy, but his wars with Francis of France and the Turks took so 
much of his efforts that he could not put forth his power to crush the 
reform movement. The Diet of Augsburg was held after his second 



BAAL.-ZEPHON 23 

war with Francis, and though the emperor decided for Catholicism, 
when the time came to execute the edict the next spring, he was again 
busy with France and the Turks. 

The Confession shows the ideas of the Reformation better than any 
other one document, and is the basis of the Protestantism of North- 
ern Europe. It was not, however, the belief in all ways of all Protes- 
tants. Zwingli believed that the sacrament did not change the bread 
and wine to the actual body of Christ, and Luther and he never per- 
manently joined forces. Calvin later had other differences of belief, 
but the document states in an effective form the ideas of the Protestants 
of Germany. . . . 

The ideas of the Confession were Luther's, but it was drawn up by 
Melanchthon. — " The Library of Original Sources''' edited hy Oliver J. 
Thatcher, Vol. V, p. 151. Milwaukee, Wis.: University Research Exten- 
sion Company, copyright 1907. 

Baal-peor. — Baal-peor was god of the Moabite mountains, who took 
his name from Mt. Peor (Num. 23: 28), the modern Fa'ur, and was 
probably a form of Chemosh (Jerome, Comm., Isaiah 15). The sensual 
rites with which he was worshiped (Num. 25: 1-3) indicate his connec- 
tion with the Phoenician Baal. — The International Standard Bible En- 
cyclopedia, edited hy James Orr. M. A., D. D.. Vol. I, art. "Baal-peor.''' 
p. 346. 

Baal-zebub, In the Old Testament. — Baal-zebub was worshiped 
at Ekron, where he had a famous oracle (2 Kings 1: 2, 3, 16). The 
name is generally translated " the Lord of flies," the sun god being 
associated with the flies which swarm in Palestine during the earlier 
summer months. It is met with in Assyrian inscriptions. In the 
New Testament the name assumes the form of Beelzebul, in Authorized 
Version Beelzebub. — Id., art. '' Baal-zehuh,'" p. 346. 

Baal-Zephon, Meaning of. — " Ba'al-Zephon " is understood by many 
to mean " Lord of the North;" but this is to take the words in their hard 
and literal meaning, without recognizing their applied • and symbolic 
signification. Ba'al had a personality in the minds of his worshipers, 
which went beyond the etymological meaning of his name as " lord " 
and " master." To them Ba'al was Ba'al. So, also, it was with Zephon. 

Tsaphon, or Tsephon, Tsephona, means in Hebrew, and in Phoeni- 
cian, the North, or the darkness, or the shadow, or the winter, or the 
region of destructive winds; as over against the South, the light, the 
summer, the region of calm and warmth; " since the ancients regarded 
the North as the seat of gloom and darkness, in contrast with the bright 
and sunny South;" as "the dark cold region, where the sun and stars 
are extinguished, and the light swallowed up." Tsaphon, as a god, 
therefore, included the idea not of the North as a region, but of that 
which the region of the North typified. " Tsephon," or " Tsaphon," in 
the Hebrew and in the Phoenician, was the correspondent of " Tebha " 
in the Egyptian, of " Tephon," or " Tuphon," in the Aramaic, and of 
" Typhon " in the Greek. Either word represented the idea of each and 
all of the other equivalents; and each word when used as the name of 
a divinity represented a distinct identity, an ideal personality. 

Every indication which the monuments or records of Egypt, of 
Phoenicia, or of the regions east or west of those lands, give to us con- 
cerning the characteristics of a divinity bearing any one of these names, 
goes to show the same idea which is represented in the earlier Egyptian 
divinity, Set; in the later Hittite divinity, Sutekh; and in the still later 



24 BABEL., TOWER OF 

Greek divinity, Typhon. It would seem clear, indeed, that Set, Seth, 
Sutekh, Tebha, Tephon, Tuphon, Typhon, Tsapuna, Tsaphona, Tsa- 
phon, Tsephon, Zephon, represent one and the same idea, principle, 
essence, divinity; and that Ba'al (as the Semitic correspondent of the 
Egyptian Ra, Osiris, and Horus) in combination with any one of those 
names, represents the opposite of that idea, principle, essence, divinity; 
the two terms together representing the dualistic divinity of Ba'al-Set, 
or Ra-Set, or Horus-Set, or Ba'al-Typhon, or Ba'al-Tsaphon, or Ba'al- 
Zephon. 

How clearly all this brings out the identification and relative loca- 
tion of the sanctuary, or the image, of Ba'al-Zephon, in the story of the 
exodus. Typhon was the guardian of Lower Egypt. Typhon was the 
god of the desert. Typhon was the emblem of the sea. Typhon was the 
controlling deity of all foreign peoples. Typhon was the favored divin- 
ity of the reigning Pharaohs in the days of the Hebrew oppression. 
Ba'al-Typhon, or Ba'al-Zephon, was the one object of common worship 
among those who accepted the Ba'al cult imported from the North, and 
those also who determinedly adhered to the old divinities of the Egyp- 
tian theogony. The place of places for a shrine of Ba'al-Typhon was 
over against the wilderness gateway of Lower Egypt; looking toward 
the East whither the Ba'al worship was always directed; overlooking the 
desert which Typhon ruled; above the sea which Typhon typified; watch- 
ing against the foreigners whom Typhon controlled. The northernmost 
highway out of Lower Egypt, as also the central one, went Canaanward. 
Only the southern road led pre-eminently desertward, while at the same 
time it was in proximity to the sea. 

And when Pharaoh-Meneptah, of the family Devoted-to-Typhon, 
neared the eastern borders of his dominion, and saw the objects of his 
pursuit gathered there under the very shadow of his own patron divin- 
ity, the guardian god of the land which they would flee from, how 
auspicious must the sign have been to him; and how confident his 
assurance that success was now his, so certainly as Ba'al-Typhon was 
Ba'al-Typhon. — " Eadesh-Barnea,'' H. Clay TrumJ)ull, D. D., pp. 419-421. 
New York: Charles Scrihner's S07is, 1884. 

Babel, Tower of. — Writers, whose Babylonian history seems drawn 
directly from him [Berosus], or from the sources which he used, give 
the following account of the tower of Babel and the confusion of 
tongues : 

" At this time the ancient race of men were so puffed up with their 
strength and tallness of stature, that they began to despise and contemn 
the gods; and labored to erect that very lofty tower, which is now 
called Babylon, intending thereby to scale heaven. But when the build- 
ing approached the sky, behold, the gods called in the aid of the winds, 
and by their help overturned the tower, and cast it to the ground. The 
name of the ruins is still called Babel; because until this time all men 
had used the same speech, but now there was sent upon them a confu- 
sion of many and diverse tongues." — " The Historical Evidences of the 
Truth of the Scripture Records" George RawUnson, M. A., p. 70. New 
York: John B. Alden, 1883.\ 

Babel, Legend of the Tower of, and the Conittsion of Tongues. 
— This tablet is fragmentary and badly mutilated. 

1. 

1. . . . them the father. 

2. (The thoughts) of his heart were evil. 

3. . . . the father of all the gods he turned from. 

4. (The thoughts) of his heart were evil. 



BABEL, TOWER OF 25 

5. . . . Babylon corruptly to sin went and 

6. small and great mingled on the mound. 

7. . . . Babylon corruptly to sin went and 

8. small and great mingled on the mound. 

2. 

1. The King of the holy mound . . . 

2. In front and Anu lifted up . . . 

3. to the good god his father . . . 

4. Then his heart also ... 

5. which carried a command ... 

6. At that time also . . . 

7. he lifted it up . . . 

8. Davkina. 

9. Their (work) all day they founded 

10. to their stronghold in the night 

11. entirely an end he made. 

12. In his anger also the secret counsel he poured out 

13. to scatter (abroad) his face he set 

14. he gave a command to make strange their speech 

15. . . . their progress he impeded 

16. . . . the altar 

(Column 3 is so broken, only a few words remain, so it is omitted.) 

4. 

1. In (that day) 

2. he blew and . . . 

3. For future time the mountain . . . 

4. Nu-nam-nir went . . . 

5. Like heaven and earth he spake . . . 

6. His ways they went ... 

7. Violently they fronted against him 

8. He saw them and to the earth (descended) 

9. When a stop he did not make 

10. of the gods . . . 

11. Against the gods they revolted 

12. . . . violence ... 

13. Violently they wept for Babylon 

14. very much they wept. 

15. And in the midst ... 

(The rest is wanting). 
— ) Tablet in the British Museum, translated 'by W. St. Chad. Boscawen; 
cited in " The Library of Original Sources,'' edited by Oliver J. Thatcher, 
Vol. I, pp. 433, 434. MiUoaukee, Wis.: University Research Extension 
Company, copyright 1907. 

Babil, Name of Babyi.on. — II (or Ra) was, as already remarked, 
a somewhat shadowy being. There is a vagueness about the name itself, 
which means simply " god," and can scarcely be said to connote any 
particular attribute. The Babylonians never represent his form, and 
they frequently omit him from lists which seem to contain all the other 
principal gods. Yet he was certainly regarded as the head of the pan- 
theon, and in the most ancient times must have been acknowledged as 
the tutelary deity of Babylon itself, which received its name of Bab-il 
(in Accadian, Ka-ra), meaning "the Gate of II [or god]," from him. — 
" The Religions of the Ancient World," George Rawlinson," M. A., p. 37. 
New York: Hurst c€ Go, 

Babylon, Era of Nabonassae. — This era begins with the accession 
of the Babylonian king Nabonassar. Its epoch, as defined in the Astro- 



26 BABYLON, IDOLATRY OF 

nomical Canon of the ancients, is the 1st Thoth = 26 February of the 
year 747 b. c. The dates connected with this era are always those of the 
vague year of the Egyptians. — " Chronology of the Holy Scriptures,'" 
Henry Browne, M. A., p. 483. London: John W. Parker, 1844. 

Babylon, Era of NabonaSsar, Origin of. — This scientific Chaldean 
era commenced soon after the Grecian and the Roman. Combined with 
the Christian, they form the four cardinal eras of sacred and profane 
chronology. 

The origin of this era is thus represented by Syncellus, from the 
accounts of Polyhistor and Berosus, the earliest writers extant on 
Chaldean history and antiquities. 

" Nabonassar (king of Babylon) having collected the acts of his 
predecessors, destroyed them, in order that the computation of the 
reigns of the Chaldean kings might be made from himself." 

It began therefore with the reign of Nabonassar, Feb. 26, b. c. 747. 
— "A 'New Analysis of Chronology and Geography,'" Rev. William Hales, 
D. D., Vol. I. p. 155. London: G. J. G. <& F. Rivington, 1830. 

Babylon, Religion of. — In the first place, it must be noticed that 
the religion was to a certain extent astral. The heaven itself, the sun, 
the moon, and the five planets, have each their representative in the 
Chaldean Pantheon among the chief objects of worship. At the same 
time it is to be observed that the astral element is not universal, but 
partial; and that, even where it has place, it is but one aspect of the 
mythology, not by any means its full and complete exposition. The Chal- 
dean religion even here is far from being mere Sabaganism — the simple 
worship of the " host of heaven." — " The Five Great Monarchies of the 
Ancient Eastern World'' George Rawlinson, M. A., Yol. I, p. 111. New 
York: Dodd, Mead d Co. 

Babylon, Idolatry of, a Real Polytheism. — The Babylonian and 
Assyrian polytheism differed from the Egyptian, in the first place, by 
being less multitudinous, and in the second, by having, far more than the 
Egyptian, an astral character. The Mesopotamian system was, more- 
over, so far as appears, what the Egyptian was not, a belief in really 
distinct gods. . . . According to all appearance, the religion of the 
Babylonians and Assyrians was thus a real polytheism, a worship of 
numerous divinities, whom it was not thought necessary to trace to a 
single stock, who were essentially on a par the one with the other, and 
who divided among them the religious regards of the people. — " The 
Religions of the Ancient World,-' George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 35, 36. 
New York: Hurst & Co. 

Babylon, Idolatry of, Bel. — The god Bel, familiarly known to us 
both from Scripture and from the Apocrypha, is one of the most marked 
and striking figures in the pantheon alike of Babylonia and of Assyria. 
Bel is the " god of lords," " the father of the gods," " the creator," " the 
mighty prince," and " the just prince of the gods." He plays a leading 
part in the mythological legends which form so curious a feature in 
the Babylonian and Assyrian religion. In the " History of Creation " 
we are told that Bel made the earth and the heaven; that he formed 
man by means of a mixture of his own blood with earth, and also formed 
beasts; and that afterward he created the sun and the moon, the stars, 
and the five planets. In the " War of the Gods," we find him contending 
with the great dragon, Tiamat, and after a terrible single combat de- 
stroying her by fiinging a thunderbolt into her open mouth. He also, in 
conjunction with Hoa, plans the defense when the seven spirits of evil 



BABYLON, IDOLATRY OF 27 

rise in rebellion, and the dwelling-place of the gods is assaulted by 
them. The titles of Bel generally express dominion. He is " the lord," 
par excellence, which is the exact meaning of his name in Assyrian; he 
is " the king of all the spirits," " the lord of the world," and again, " the 
lord of all the countries." Babylon and Nineveh are, both of them, 
under his special care, Nineveh having the title of " the city of Bel," in 
some passages of the inscriptions. — " The Religions of the Ancient 
World," George Raivlinson, M. A., p. 40. New York: Hurst d Co. 

Babylon, Idolatry of, Merodach. — As Nin was a favorite Assyrian, 
so Merodach was a favorite Babylonian god. From the earliest times 
the Babylonian monarchs placed him in the highest rank of deities, 
worshiping him in conjunction with Anu, Bel, and Hea, the three gods 
of the first triad. The great temple of Babylon, known to the Greeks 
as the Temple of Bel, was certainly dedicated to him; and it would 
therefore seem that the later Babylonians, at any rate, must have 
habitually applied to him the name of Bel, or " lord," which in earlier 
times had designated a different member of their pantheon. Mero- 
dach's ordinary titles are, " the great," " the great lord," " the prince," 
" the prince of the gods," and " the august god." He is also called " the 
judge," " the most ancient," " he who judges the gods," " the eldest son 
of heaven," and in one place, " the lord of battles." Occasionally, he 
has still higher and seemingly exclusive designations, such as, " the 
great lord of eternity," " the king of heaven and earth," " the lord of all 
beings," " the chief of the gods," and " the god of gods." But these 
titles seem not to be meant exclusively. He is held in considerable 
honor among the Assyrians, being often coupled with Asshur, or with 
Asshur and Nebo, as a war god, one by whom the kings gain victories 
and obtain the destruction of their enemies. But it is in Babylonia, 
and especially in the latter Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar 
and Neriglissar, that his worship culminates. It is then that all the epi- 
thets of highest honor are accumulated upon him, and that he becomes 
an almost exclusive object of worship; it is then that we find such ex- 
pressions as: "I supplicated the king of gods, the lord of lords, in Bor- 
sippa, the city of his loftiness;" and, "O god Merodach, great lord, lord 
of the house of the gods, light of the gods, father, even for thy high 
honor, which changeth not, a temple have I built." — Id., pp. 47, 48. 

Babylon, Idolatry of, Bel-Merodach. — Bel-Merodach is, beyond all 
doubt, the planet Jupiter, which is still called Bel by the Mendaeans. 
The name " Merodach " is of uncertain etymology and meaning. , . 
Most likely the word is a descriptive epithet, originally attached to the 
name Bel, in the same way as Nipru, but ultimately usurping its place 
and coming to be regarded as the proper name of the deity. — " The Five 
Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World,'' George RaioUnson, 
M. A., Vol. I, p. 134. New York: Dodd. Mead d Co. 

Babylon, Idolatry of, Nebo. — ^ Nebo, the last of the five planetary 
deities, presided over Mercury. It was his special function to have 
under his charge learning and knowledge. He is called " the god who 
possesses intelligence," " he who hears from afar," " he who teaches," 
and " he who teaches and instructs." The tablets of the royal library 
at Nineveh are said to contain " the wisdom of Nebo." He is also, like 
Mercury, " the minister of the gods," though scarcely their messenger, 
an oflBce which belongs to Paku. At the same time, as has often been 
remarked, Nebo has, like many other of the Assyrian and Babylonian 
gods, a number of general titles implying divine power, which, if they 
had belonged to him alone, would have seemed to prove him the supreme 



28 BABYLON, NEBUCHADNEZZAR 

deity. He is " the lord of lords, who has no equal in power," " the 
supreme chief," " the sustainer," " the supporter," " the ever ready," 
" the guardian of heaven and earth," " the lord of the constellations," 
" the holder of the scepter of power," " he who grants to kings the 
scepter of royalty for the governance of their people." It is chiefly by 
his omission from many lists, and by his humble place, when he is 
mentioned together with the really " great gods," that we are assured 
of his occupying a (comparatively speaking) low position in the general 
pantheon. — " TTie Religions of the Ancient World,,"" George Rawlinson, 
M. A., pp. SO, 61. New York: Hurst <& Go. 

Babylon, Chariots of. — The employment of war chariots by the 
Babylonians, which is asserted by Jeremiah (Jer. 4: 13; 50: 37), in 
marked contrast with his descriptions of the Medo-Persians, who are 
represented as "riders upon horses" (ib., verse 42; compare chap. 51: 
27), receives confirmation from the Assyrian inscriptions, which repeat- 
edly mention the chariot force as an important part of the Babylonian 
army, and is also noticed by Polyhistor. Their skill with the bow, also 
noted by the same prophet (chaps. 4: 29; 5: 16; 6: 23; 51: 3), has the 
support of ^schylus, and is in accordance with the monuments, which 
show us the bow as the favorite weapon of the monarchs. — " Egypt and 
Babylon,'' George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 103. Netv York: John B. Alden, 
1885. 

Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, Time of Reign of. — We have both 
Scripture testimony, and profane, to the fact of a twofold' epoch of the 
years of this king of Babylon [Nebuchadnezzar]. 

In the first place, Daniel, a minister of state, and writing his own 
history at Babylon, indicates the fact in a manner which is not to be 
mistaken. Dan. 1: 1. "In the third year of Jehoiakim king of Judah 
[which ended at 1 Nisan b. c. 606], came Nebuchadnezzar king of Baby- 
lon unto Jerusalem and besieged it." " And the Lord gave Jehoiakim 
into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God " [i. e., when 
the siege was ended, which of course took some time: and it is from the 
end of the siege in the fourth or fifth Jewish month, as I suppose, that 
the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar bears date in the .Scripture enu- 
meration]. And the king ordered certain of the youths to be selected 
for education, which education v/as to last three years, " that at the 
end thereof they might stand before the king." " Now at the end of 
the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince 
of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar." Three years 
counted from 606 lead to the same date of 603; i. e., to the end of the 
second year of Nebuchadnezzar according to the canon. Now mark the 
context (2: 1) : ''And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, 
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, etc.;" that is to say, after the expira- 
tion of the three years of training, which expired, as we have seen, in 
the second year of Nebuchadnezzar as reckoned in the canon. Can any- 
thing be plainer than the fact thus brought out, that the actual reign of 
Nebuchadnezzar, in the enumeration which would of course be followed 
by a writer living at Babylon, began later than the conquest of Jerusa- 
lem in which Daniel was taken? and consequently, that the Scripture 
itself recognizes two distinct epochs, the one of King Nebuchadnezzar, 
in respect of his first conquest of Jerusalem, the other, of the reign of 
Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon? — " Chronology of the Holy Scriptures,"" 
Henry Browne, M. A., p. 171. London: John W. Parker, 1844. 

Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, Length of Reign or. — The length of 
Nebuchadnezzar's reign is stated without any variety by Berosus, Poly- 



BABYLON, BELSHAZZAR 29 

histor, and Ptolemy, at forty-three years. The Babylonian monuments 
go near to prove the same, for the forty-second year of Nebuchadnezzar 
has been found on a clay tablet. Here Scripture is in exact accordance; 
for as the first year of Evil-Merodach, the son and successor of Nebu- 
chadnezzar, is the thirty-seventh of the captivity of Jehoiachin, who 
was taken to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year, it is evident that 
just forty-three years are required for the reign of the great Chaldean 
monarch. This agreement, moreover, is incidental; for Evil-Merodach 
is not said in Scripture to have been the successor of Nebuchadnezzar: 
we only know this fact from profane sources. — ' " The Historical Evi- 
dences of the Truth of the Scripture Records,'' George Rawlinson, M. A., 
pp. 133, 134. New York: John B. Alden, 1883. 

Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar's Religion. — The peculiar character of 
Nebuchadnezzar's religion — - at one time polytheistic, at another mon- 
otheistic — is also evidenced by his inscriptions. The polytheism is seen 
in the distinct and separate acknowledgment of at least thirteen deities, 
to most of whom he builds temples, as well as in his mention of " the 
great gods," and the expressions " chief of the gods," " king of gods," 
and " god of gods," which are of frequent occurrence. The monotheism, 
or at least the " kathenotheism," discloses itself in the attitude assumed 
toward Merodach, who is " the great lord," " the god his maker," " the 
lord of all beings," " the prince of the lofty house," " the chief, the 
honorable, the prince of the gods, the great Merodach," " the divine 
prince, the deity of heaven and earth, the lord god," " the king of 
gods and lord of lords," "the chief of the gods," "the lord of the 
gods," " the god of gods," and " the king of heaven and earth." Nebu- 
chadnezzar assigns to Merodach a pre-eminence which places him on a 
pedestal apart from and above all the other deities of his pantheon. 
He does not worship him exclusively, but he worships him mainly; 
and when engaged in the contemplation of his greatness, scarcely takes 
into account the existence of any other deity. No other Babylonian king 
is so markedly the votary of one god as Nebuchadnezzar; though, no 
doubt, something of a similar spirit may be traced in the inscriptions 
of Khammurabi, of Neriglissar, and of Nabonidus. — " Egypt and Baby- 
lon," George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 46, 47. New York: John B. Alden, 
1885. 

Babylon, Belshazzar's Relationship to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 5: 
11). — There is no real evidence [from the records] which can be ad- 
duced to prove that Belshazzar was an actual descendant of Nebuchad- 
nezzar. It is, however, highly probable that Belshazzar may have been 
so descended. For, like Neriglissor, Nabunaid would naturally have 
sought to strengthen his position by intermarriage with the old royal 
stock; and it is admitted on the other side that there is no evidence to 
show that he did not so ally himself. — ''Daniel and His Prophecies,'" 
Rev. Charles H. H. Wright, D. D., p. 130. London: Williams and Nor- 
gate, 1906. 

Babylon, Belshazzar as Son of Reigning House. — As to the rela- 
tion between Belshazzar and the two kings Nebuchadnezzar and Nabu- 
naid, he may well have been the son of both. First he may have been 
the procreated son of Nebuchadnezzar and the stepson of Nabunaid, 
because the latter married Belshazzar's mother after the death of 
Nebuchadnezzar. It was the custom of succeeding kings to marry the 
wives of their predecessors. . . . The queen of Daniel 5: 10 may have 
been the mother of Belshazzar (though she is not called this), and still 
have been a young woman when the glory of the Chaldee's excellency 



30 BABYLON, DARIUS 

passed into the hands of the conquering Medo-Persian army under 
Gobryas and Cyrus. Or, Belshazzar may have been the own son of 
Nebuchadnezzar and the adopted son of Nabunaid. This would account 
for the fact that Berosus, according to Josephus (Cont. Apion, 1. 20), 
calls Nabunaid a Babylonian, whereas Belshazzar is called by Daniel a 
Chaldean. What could have been better policy on the part of the 
Babylonian Nabunaid than to attempt to unite the conquered Baby- 
lonians and the Chaldean conquerors by adopting as his own successor 
the son or grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, the greatest of all the Chaldean 
kings? According to the code of Hammurabi, 186, 190, 193, a man 
might in this way have two fathers. This was the law also, in the 
time of Nabunaid. — " Studies in the Book of Daniel," Robert D. Wilson, 
pp. 119, 120. 'New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1917. 

How could Belshazzar be called by Nabunaid, not merely the " son 
of the king," but " Belshazzar the first-born son," and " Belshazzar the 
first-born son, the offspring of my heart," if he were not the born son 
of Nabunaid? Fortunately, this question is answered in Meissner's 
Althabylonisclies Privatrecht, 98, where we learn that an adopted son 
could be called, not merely " the son," but " the eldest son " of his 
adopted parents. In the inscription of Eshki-Harran the high priest 
calls Nabunaid his " son, the offspring of his heart." — Id., p. ISO. 

Babylon, Darius the Mede and Gobryas. — Xenophon's statement 
about Gobryas's share in the death of the king of Babylon is confirmed 
by the Tablet of Cyrus. Gobryas is spoken of in the Annalistic Tablet 
of Cyrus as having been governor of Gutium, in Kurdistan, and there- 
fore might be regarded as a Median. He is afterward spoken of as 
governor of Babylon. 

Dr. Pinches has, therefore, with considerable probability, conjec- 
tured that Gobryas was " Darius the Mede." . . . Cyrus, of course, re- 
tained his position as " king of kings " or " king of countries." The book 
of Daniel states that after the death of Belshazzar, " Darius the Median 
received ( bsp ) the kingdom." The Aramaic verb implies that Darius 

received the "crown from some superior power. The expression used 
later (Dan. 9:1) also suggests that Darius had over him a suzerain lord, 
for it is: "Darius the Mede, who was made king [italics ours] over the 
kingdom of the Chaldeans." — " Daniel and His Prophecies,'' Rev. Charles 
H. H. Wright, p. 136. London: Williams and Norgate, 1906. 

Now, Gobryas was governor of Gutium (which at this time included 
Ecbatana) when he conquered Babylon. When he became governor of 
Babylonia, his dominion would extend over all the country from the 
mountains of Media to the deserts of Arabia. — " Studies in the Book 
of Daniel," Rohert D. V/ilson, p. 143. Neiv York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 
1917. 

Why may not the name Darius have been assumed first of all by 
Gobryas the Mede, when, he became king of Babylon? When Tiglath- 
Pileser was proclaimed king of Babylon and the other Assyrian kings 
who adopted a policy similar to his, they often ruled as kings in Baby- 
lon under names different from those which they had as kings of 
Assyria. — Id., pp. 138, 139. 

Babylon, A Co-Regent Called " King." — Cyrus made his son Cam- 
byses a co-regent the year before his death (530 b. c). He gave him 
the title " King of Babylon," while he retained " King of countries." — 
''Light on the Old Testament from Bahel," AWert T. Clay, Ph. D., p. 
386. Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Company, 1907. 



BABYIiON, TABLETS ON 31 

Babylon, Witness of the Contbact Tablets. — The chronicle [tab- 
let] mentions the fact that, prior to Cyrus's appearing in person, the 
gates of E-Sagila were guarded, and that no arms were taken into the 
sanctuary. It is not so likely that Belshazzar and his nobles were 
assembled there, but it is quite possible that they had fortified them- 
selves in the great palace which Nebuchadnezzar had built; in which 
case it would be the palace referred to in the book of Daniel. The 
king's palace was separately fortified, and protected by walls and 
moats, — in other words, it was a fortress within a fortified city. After 
Nabonidus, who was the rightful heir to the throne, had been de- 
throned, it is altogether reasonable to suppose that Belshazzar's faith- 
ful followers proclaimed him king, and that he reigned in this peculiar 
way for nearly four months. 

The dating of contracts shows that the people did not recognize 
Cyrus as king until after he had entered the city. In contracts pub- 
lished by Father Strassmaier there are no less than twelve dated in 
the reign of Nabonidus after he was imprisoned, in fact, up to the day 
before Belshazzar's death, and one even later. On the other hand, 
there is one published contract dated in the reign of Cyrus which is 
supposed to belong to the month prior to his entrance into the city, but 
the tablet is effaced, and the date uncertain. The first tablet, the date 
in which his reign is mentioned, was written on the 24th of Marches- 
van, i. e., twenty-one days after Cyrus had proclaimed peace in Baby- 
lon. These facts show that Cyrus was not generally acknowledged to 
be king until after he entered Babylon, three and a half months after 
his army had dethroned Nabonidus. And although during this period 
the scribes continued to date legal documents in the reign of the de- 
throned king, it is quite reasonable to believe that at least some re- 
garded Belshazzar as the ruler. — ''Light on the Old Testament from 
Babel," Albert T. Clay, Ph. D., pp. 377-379. Philadelphia: The Sunday 
School Times Company, 1907. 

Note. — Thus the tablets were still dated in the reign of Nabonidus, while 
the final blow was tarrying. Little wonder, then, that Belshazzar himself should 
count Nabonidus first ruler, himself second, and so promise Daniel the place of 
" third ruler in the kingdom." — Eds. 

Babylon, How Sonship was Counted in Ancient Bast. — Son was 
used in ancient documents (1) to denote succession in ofiice, as Jehu is 
called the son of Omri [in inscription of Shalmaneser III: " The tribute 
of the Tyrian, the Sidonian, and of Jehu, son of Omri, I received." — 
Barton's ''Archeology and the Bible,'" p. 362'\; or (2) for members of a 
corporation, as the son of a prophet is used in the Scriptures (1 Kings 
20: 35), or the son of a scribe in Assyrian [Sargon's Annals]; or (3) 
for remote descendant, as son of Adam in the " Arabian Nights " (Lane, 
ii, 196), or son of David, and son of Abraham in the New Testament 
(Luke 18: 38; 19: 9); or (4) for grandson, as frequently in the Scrip- 
tures. — " Studies in the Book of Daniel," Robert D. Wilson, pp. 117, 
118. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1917. 

Babylon, City of, in the Light of Excavations. — In the time of 
Nebuchadnezzar the traveler who approached the capital of Babylonia 
from the north would find himself where the Nil Canal flows today, face 
to face with the colossal wall that surrounded mighty Babylon. Part of 
this wall still exists and is recognizable at the present time in the guise 
of a low earthen ridge about four to five kilometers in length. Up to 
the present [Preface is dated " Babylon, May 16, 1912 "] we have only 
excavated a small part. . . . There was a massive wall of crude brick 
7 meters thick, in front of which, at an interval of about 12 meters, 



32 BABYLON, BEL. 

stood another wall of burnt brick 7.8 meters thick. . . . The space be- 
tween the two walls was filled in with rubble, at least to the height at 
which the ruins are preserved, and presumably to the crown of the outer 
wall. Thus on the top of the wall there was a road that afforded space 
for a team of four horses abreast, and even for two such teams to pass 
each other. . . . The line of defense was very long; the northeast front, 
which can still be measured, is 4,400 meters long. . . . Generally speak- 
ing, the measurements given [by Herodotus and other ancient writers] 
are not in accordance with those actually preserved, while the general 
description, on the contrary, is usually accurate. — " The Excavations at 
Bal)ylon," Robert Koldeway, pp. 1-3. London, 1914. 

Note. — It must be remembered, however, that excavators are not sure that 
they have found the outmost walls and defenses of Babylon : so that Herodotus, 
while admittedly capable of exaggerating, may not be overstating Babylon's dimen- 
sions after all.^ Eds. 

Babylon, The Confounder Confounded, — While the Greek name 
Belus represented both the Baal and Bel of the Chaldees, these were 
nevertheless two entirely distinct titles. These titles were both alike 
often given to the same god, but they had totally different meanings. 
Baal, as we have already seen, signified the "lord;" but Bel signified 
the " confounder." When, then, we read that Belus, the father of Ninus, 
was he that built or founded Babylon, can there be a doubt in what sense 
it was that the title of Belus was given to him? It must have been in 
the sense of Bel the " confounder." And to this meaning of the name 
of the Babylonian Bel, there is a very distinct allusion in Jeremiah 
1: 2, where it is said, "Bel is confounded," that is, "The confounder is 
brought to confusion." That Gush was known to pagan antiquity under 
the very character of Bel, the " confounder," a statement of Ovid very 
clearly proves. 

The statement to which I refer is that in which Janus, " the god 
of gods," from whom all the other gods had their origin, is made to say 
of himself: "The ancients . . . called me Chaos." Now, first, this 
decisively shows that Chaos was known not merely as a state of con- 
fusion, but as the "god of confusion;" but, secondly, who that is at 
all acquainted with the laws of Chaldaic pronunciation, does not know 
that Chaos is just one of the established forms of the name Chiis, or 
Gush? Then, look at the symbol of Janus, whom " the ancients called 
Chaos," and it will be seen how exactly it tallies with the doings of 
Gush, when he is identified with Bel, the " confounder." That symbol 
is a club; and the name of "a club" in Ghaldee comes from the very 
word which signifies " to break in pieces," or scatter abroad." He who 
caused the confusion of tongues was he who " broke " the previously 
united earth (Gen. 11: 1) "in pieces," and "scattered" the fragments 
abroad. 

How significant, then, as a symbol, is the club, as commemorating 
the work of Gush, as Bel, the "confounder"! And that significance 
will be all the more apparent when the reader turns to the Hebrew of 
Gen. 11: 9, and finds that the very word from which a club derives its 
name is that which is employed when it is said that in consequence of 
the confusion of tongues, the children of men were " scattered abroad 
on the face of all the earth." The word there used for scattering abroad 
is Hephaitz, which, in the Greek form becomes Hephaizt, and hence the 
origin of the well-known but little understood name of Hephaistos, as 
applied to Vulcan, " the father of the gods." Hephaistos is the name 
of the ringleader in the first rebellion, as the " scatterer abroad," as Bel 
is the name of the same individual as the " confounder of tongues." 



BEEIiZEBUB 33 

Here, then, the reader may see the real origin of Vulcan's hammer, 
which is just another name for the club of Janus or Chaos, " the god of 
confusion; " and to this, as breaking the earth in pieces, there is a 
covert allusion in Jeremiah 1: 23, where Babylon, as identified with its 
primeval god, is thus apostrophized : " How is the hammer of the 
whole earth cut asunder and broken! " Now, as the tower building was 
the first act of open rebellion after the fiood, and Gush, as Bel, was the 
ringleader in it, he was, of course, the first to whom the name Mero- 
dach, " the great rebel," must have been given, and, therefore, according 
to the usual parallelism of the prophetic language, we find both names 
of the Babylonian god referred to together, when the judgment on 
Babylon is predicted: "Bel is confounded: Merodach is broken in 
pieces." Jer. 1: 2. The judgment comes upon the Babylonian god 
according to what he had done. As Bel, he had " confounded " the 
whole earth, therefore he is " confounded." As Merodach, by the re- 
bellion he had stirred up, he had " broken " the united world in 
pieces; therefore he himself is "broken in pieces." — "The Two Baby- 
Ions," Rev. Alexander Hislop, pp. 26-28, 7th edition. London: 8. W. 
Partridge d Go. 

Beelzebub, In New Testament. — Beelzebub (in Authorized Version 
and Revised Version is an error [after Vulgate] for Beelzebul [Revised 
Version, margin] ) . In the time of Christ this was the current name for 
the chief or prince of demons, and was identified with Satan and the 
devil. The Jews committed the unpardonable sin of ascribing Christ's 
work of casting out demons to Beelzebul, thus ascribing to the worst 
source the supreme manifestation of goodness. Matt. 10: 25; 12: 24, 27; 
Mark 3: 22; Luke 11: 15, 18, 19. There can be little doubt that it is 
the same name as Baalzebub. It is a well-known phenomenon in the his- 
tory of religions that the gods of one nation become the devils of its 
neighbors and enemies. When the Aryans divided into Indians and Ira- 
nians, the Devas remained gods for the Indians, but became devils 
(daevas) for the Iranians, while the Ahuras remained gods for the 
Iranians and became devils (asuras) for the Indians. Why Baalzebub 
became Beelzebul, why the 6 changed into I, is a matter of conjecture. — 
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, 
M. A.^ D. D., Vol. I, art. " Beelzebub," p. 423. 

Baptism, Definition of Term in Lexicons. — 

jS^TTTw [baptol :...!. Trans, to dip in water. ... 2. To dip in dye, 
to dye. ... 3. To draw water by dipping a vessel. — Liddell and Scott's 
Greek-English Lexicon, 7th edition, 1882. New York: American Book 
Company. 

/SdTTTw [6apio] : ... To dip, plunge, immerse: to dye or stain; . . . 
to temper, by dipping in water; ... to wash; ... to fill by drawing up; 
... to bathe one's self; to be submerged, sunk; ... to be lost as a ship. 

— Greek-English Lexicon, George Dunbar, A. M., F. R. 8. E., professor of 
Greek in the University of Edinburgh. Edinburgh: Maclachlan and 
Steivart, 1850. 

jSctTrrw Ibapto'^ : 1. To dip. ... 2. To dye. . . .4. To plunge a knife. 

— Greek Lexicon of the Greek and Byzantine Periods (from B. C. 146 to 
A. D. 1100), E. A. Sophocles. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900. 

^diTTKrfjLa Ibaptismul (^aTrri^w [baptizo']) , a word peculiar to the New 
Testament and ecclesiastical writers, immersion, submersion. ... 1. 
Used tropically of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite 
3 



34 BAPTISM 

overwhelmed. ... 2. Of John's baptism. ... 3. Of Christian baptism; 
this according to the view of the apostles, is a rite of sacred immersion, 
commanded by Christ. — A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testa- 
ment, being Grimm's Wilke's Glavis Novi Testamenti, translated hy 
Joseph Henry Thayer, D. D., 4th edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901, 

Note. — Bapto is the root whence comes the word haptizo, the Anglicized 
form of which, " baptize," is a familiar word in our English speech. — Eds. 

Baptism, Early Interpretation of. — The doctrine of baptism 
stands in intimate connection with the doctrine of the church. From 
the founding of Christianity great efficacy was attached to baptism In 
relation to the forgiveness of sins and to regeneration. Some of the 
Fathers, especially Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, in treating of this 
subject, as well as of the doctrine of the church, often indulged in exag- 
gerated, fanciful, and absurd allegories and symbolisms, while Origen 
draws a more distinct line between the external sign and the thing 
signified. Infant baptism was not universal until the time of Tertul- 
lian; and this Father, though a strenuous advocate of the doctrine of 
original sin, nevertheless opposed paedobaptism on the ground that an 
innocent age needs no cleansing from sins. Origen, on the contrary, is 
in favor of infant baptism. In the time of Cyprian it became more 
general in the African church, so that the African bishop Fidus appealed 
to the analogy of circumcision under the Old Testament dispensation, 
and proposed to delay the performance of the ceremony of baptism to 
the eighth day, which, however, Cyprian did not allow. — " A History of 
Christian Doctrines,'' Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Vol. I, pp. ^77, 278. Edin- 
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880. 

Bible, Christ the Key to. — How truly all that was imperfect, 
transitional, temporary, in the Old Testament was brought to realiza- 
tion and completion in the redemption and spiritual kingdom of Christ, 
need not here be dwelt upon. Christ is the prophet, priest, and king of 
the new covenant. His perfect sacrifice, "once for all," supersedes and 
abolishes the typical sacrifices of the old economy. Hebrews 9, 10. His 
gift of the Spirit realizes what the prophets had foretold of God's law 
being written in men's hearts. Jer.Sl: 31-34; 32: 39, 40; Eze. 11: 19, 20, 
etc. His kingdom is established on moveless foundations, and can have 
no end. Phil. 2: 9-11; Heb. 12: 28; Rev. 5: 13, etc. In tracing the 
lines of this redeeming purpose of God, brought to light in Christ, we 
gain the key which unlocks the inmost meaning of the whole Bible. 
It is the revelation of a " gospel." — The International Standard Bible En- 
cyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Yol. I, art. " Bible,'' p. 468. 

Bible, Time of Writing of New Testament Books. — 

Epistle of James before a. d. 50 

1 and 2 Thessalonians, from Corinth 52-53 

1 Corinthians and Galatians, from Ephesus 55-57 

2 Corinthians, from Macedonia 57 

Romans, from Corinth 57, 58 

Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, from Rome 62 

Philippians, from Rome . . . . * 63 

1 Timothy and Titus, from Macedonia 65-66 

2 Timothy, from Rome 67 

Synoptic Gospels, Acts, Jude, and Hebrews before 67 

1 and 2 Peter, from Rome 64-67 

Fourth Gospel, Revelation, Epistles of John, from Ephesus . . before 100 

— Id., art. " Chronology of the New Testament," p. 650. 

Note. — This table is not based upon any definite Chronological data, but 
represents the best judgment of modern scholars. — Eds. 



BIBIiE MANUSCRIPTS 35 

Bible, New Testament Manuscripts. — It is an amazing thing that 
no scholar forty years ago had ever read a manuscript written during 
the lifetime of Jesus and in the language commonly spoken and written 
in that era. Many classics dated indeed from that or earlier periods, 
but these were all known to us through manuscripts written many cen- 
turies after their composition. The New Testament manuscripts had 
been reproduced oftener than any classic, so that the text was to that 
degree more certain, yet no New Testament manuscript known was 
older than the fourth century a. d., and only three or four older than 
the sixth century. Home, in his well-known " Introduction," pub- 
lished some ninety years ago, could mention 550 good New Testament 
texts of all ages that had been collated by scholars, and Westcott and 
Hort made their critical Greek text, which formed the basis of our 
Revised Version, from 1,700 manuscripts; but in 1902, when Von Soden 
published his " Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments," he knew of 2,328 
uncial manuscripts besides over 1,700 important minuscules, the text of 
the New Testament being more thoroughly fixed, therefore, than the text 
of any of Shakespeare's plays. . . . 

Up to this generation the oldest New Testament manuscripts known 
were the Codex Sinaiticus, fourth century, discovered 1859; the Codex 
Vaticanus, fourth century, published, though very inaccurately, 1828-38; 
the Codex Alexandrinus, fifth century, known since the seventeenth 
century and representing essentially the text of our Authorized Version ; 
and the Codex Bezae, sixth century or earlier, the knowledge of which 
dates to the sixteenth century. Such were all the ancient New Testa- 
ment manuscripts of the first class known previous to this generation; 
though there were known a good many valuable manuscripts of, the 
second class, dating from the sixth and later centuries. 

In 1909 Dr. Caspar Rene Gregory catalogued all the known manu- 
scripts of the New Testament in all lands, being able to list thirty-five 
or forty fragments of parchment and vellum dating from the fourth 
to the sixth century, and some twenty fragments from some fifteen 
different ancient New Testaments written on papyrus between the third 
and sixth centuries. Sir F. G. Kenyon in 1913 added eight papyrus 
Testaments to this list. The present writer, in 1917, was able to report 
twenty-eight additional fragments of papyrus New Testaments dating 
from the third to the sixth century. 

The importance of these discoveries is immensely great. We now 
for the first time have in our hands manuscripts written in the third 
century, a hundred years earlier than any previously known, and 
these New Testaments written long before the days of the emperor 
Constantine are in every essential exactly like our own. They differ 
occasionally in verbal form and in the spelling of words, as the Revised 
Version differs from the Authorized Version and the Authorized Version 
from Wycliffe's version, but in every essential phrase and fact they 
are our New Testament and none other. . . . 

While most of these newly recovered Greek texts are pitifully frag- 
mentary, one at least, the Washington Codex, in size and complete 
preservation, as well as in other respects, deserves to rank on an 
equality with the Sinaitic manuscript which Tischendorf found on Mt. 
Sinai and which became the chief treasure of the library in Con- 
stantinople. 

This beautiful manuscript of the four Gospels was bought in Cairo, 
December, 1906, by an American, Mr. Charles L. Freer, of Detroit. It 
consists of 372 well-written pages, and according to Prof. Edgar J. 
Goodspeed, of the University of Chicago, " it promises to play an impor- 
tant part in further studies of the Western text," while in Its Syrian 



36 BIBLE, KEY WORDS TO 

parts it stands with the Alexandrinus as a second and hardly inferior 
Greek witness. Prof. Henry A. Sanders, of the University of Michigan, 
the scholarly editor of this manuscript, has shown convincingly, as the 
writer believes, that the date of this manuscript, which shall forever he 
the pride of America, must be allowed to be " the fourth century, though 
the beginning of the fifth must still be admitted as a possibility." 
With the exception of a spectacular addition to Mark 16: 14, this ven- 
erable manuscript — so old that it was shown as a curiosity in the fifth 
century, as the blots from pilgrim candles still testify — remains 
another invaluable testimony to the accuracy with which our New Testa- 
ment has been transmitted. — Article by Camden M. Cohern, D. D., 
Litt. D., " The New Archeological Discoveries and the New Testament 
Text," in the BiMical Review, January, 1920, pp. 14-21, New York. 

Bible, Key-Words to Books of. — 

Genesis 

Key-word, ''Beginning;'' Key-verse, 1:1. — This is the book of the 
beginnings. No beginning is ascribed to God, but all else had a begin- 
ning; and here, in direct statement or in illustration, suggestion, and 
type, all things, material or moral, are traced to their origin. Every great 
leading fact and truth, relation, and revelation is here found, the germs 
of all that is afterward more fully developed, [p. 1] 

Exodus 

Key-word, '' Passo'ver;" Key-verse, 12:23. — This is the book of the 
exode or departure. By a series of ten plagues, God delivers his elect 
nation from bondage in Egypt. Blood now becomes the sign and pledge 
of redemption. The word " passover " has a threefold significance: God 
passed over the blood-sprinkled houses; then he caused to pass over, 
or be set apart to himself, all first-born (13: 12, margin) ; and he made 
Israel to pass over the Red Sea (15: 16). [p. 3] 

Leviticus 

Key-word, ''Atonement;'' Key-verse, 16:34. — This is the book of 
worship, sacrifice, and priesthood. Exodus closes with God's tabernacle 
in the midst of the tents of Israel. Leviticus opens with the law of 
offerings. In order for the Holy One to dwell among sinners and accept 
their service, there must be atonement by sacrifice and mediation by 
priesthood. The elect tribe, Levi, of the elect nation, represent the 
appointed Daysman between God and men. [p. 6] 

Numbers 

Key-word, "Sojourn;" Key-verse, 33:1. — This is the book of pil- 
grimage and service, the wilderness wandering and training. Two num- 
berings of Israel are here recorded, representing organization, system, 
the Lord's hosts equipped and marshaled for the march to Canaan. The 
time covered is about forty years, the beginning and end of the period 
being most prominent. Heb. 4:1; Ps. 95: 10, 11. Here we have warfare 
as the necessary condition of pilgrimage and possession. God's wor- 
shipers are warriors (23: 21). [p. 9] 

Deuteronomy 

Key-word, "Obedience;" Key-verse, 10:12, 13. — This is the book 
of the second law. As the first tables were broken and replaced, so the 
law broken is made emphatic by repetition. The word " remember " 
occurs some eighteen times, and the deliverance from Egypt is con- 
stantly urged as a motive to obedience (cf. verse 15). Israel, about to 
possess the land, are reminded that this is the condition of entrance 



BIBLE, KEY WORDS TO 37 

and continuance. Before Moses gives this new generation into Joshua's 
charge, he rehearses the moral law. [p. 12] 

Joshua 

Key^word, "Possession;" Key-verse, 1:3. — This book, which begins 
a new division of the Old Testament, is the book of entrance and con- 
quest, possession and dispossession. The land of promise was larger 
than the land of possession, because God gave more than faith appro- 
priated. Moses and the law brought the Israelites to the borders of the 
inheritance into which Joshua, as the type of Jesus, leads. Even in the 
Promised Land there are conflicts. Possession is by dispossession (cf. 
Eph. 6: 10-18). [p. 15] 

Judges 

Key-word, "Anarchy;" Key-verse, 21:25. — This book is named 
from the period of judges, or civil and military chieftains between 
Joshua and Saul. Between 1500 and 1000 b. c. lay four or five centuries 
of disorganization and misgovernment. Idolatry and conformity to the 
age work ruin. Unity is lost; the tribes take the place of one people. 
Faith and faithfulness give way to unbelief and fickleness. The taber- 
nacle is hidden in darkness, and there is but one mention of the high 
priest (20: 28). [p. 17] 

Ruth 

Key-word, "Kinsman'* (Redeemer) ; Key-verse. 4:14. — This is a 
pastoral idyl. In Boaz, Redeemer ( 't^2 ) of Ruth and her forfeited 
estate, two conditions must unite: he must be kinsman to have the 
right; and of a higher branch of the family, not involved in the disaster, 
to have the power, to redeem. The race is in ruin, Man is next of 
kin, but cannot redeem his fellow man, for he is ruined himself. The 
God-Man, our near kinsman, yet of a higher family, becomes both 
Redeemer and Bridegroom of the church, [p. 19] 

1 and 2 Samuel 

Key-word, "Kingdom;'' Key-verse, 1 Sam. 10:25. — These two books 
form one in the Hebrew, and in old English versions made, with the 
two following, four books of Kings. The history covers about 120 years 
and moves mainly about Samuel, Saul, and David. The prominent, 
dominant idea is the kingdom: its matter, manner, renewal, and rend- 
ing; its translation from Saul the Apostate, its deliverance from Absa- 
lom the Usurper, and its establishment in the hands of David. The 
name "Messiah" is first found here (1 Sam. 2: 10, Hebrew), [p. 21] 

1 and 2 King's 

Keyword, "Royalty;" Key-verse, 1 Kings 2:12; 11:13. — These two 
books, which again form one in the original, follow the monarchy from 
its highest glory, through decline and division to final downfall. Under 
Solomon, royalty rises to the summit of its splendor, with the temple 
as its crown. Extravagant outlay and display, heathen wives and idol 
fanes, bring the kingdom to wreck, and each of the divisions ends in 
captivity and dispersion. Author, Jeremiah (?). [p. 24] 

1 and 2 Chronicles 

Keyword, "Theocracy;" Key-verse, 2 Chron. 15:2. — These two 
books, one in the original, close the Hebrew canon. Their purpose is 
more than mere historical repetition or completion. Their ruling Idea 
is theocratic. Human kingdoms must represent God-rule. Only while 
he is recognized and reverenced, only as temple worship is neither neg- 
lected nor corrupted, can there be true prosperity, [p. 27] 



38 BIBLE, KEY WORDS TO 

Ezra, Nehemiah 

Key-word, "Restoration;" Key-verse, Ezra 1:5; Neh. 2:5. — These 
two are companion books, regarded by the Hebrews as one. Both treat 
of the return from Babylon and the restoration and reorganization, — 
the former of ecclesiastical history and the rebuilding of the temple 
under Ezra; the latter of civil history and the rebuilding of the city 
under Nehemiah. Together, they present a complete picture of post- 
captivity reconstruction and reorganization in church and state, [p. 31] 

Esther 

Key-word, ''Providence;'' Key-verse, 4:14. — This book is the ro- 
mance of providence. Esther, a Jewish captive, became bride of the 
Persian king, Ahasuerus; and came to the kingdom for a critical time. 
Haman's wicked plot to destroy her people, baffled by her bold inter- 
cession, reacted to his own ruin. The Feast of Purim (the Lot), insti- 
tuted by the Jews in memory of this deliverance, is still kept. As Ruth 
represents the Gentiles coming to the church, Esther illustrates the 
church going to the Gentiles, [p. 35] 

The Poetic Books 

The Old Testament was popularly divided into the Law, Prophets, 
and Psalms. Luke 24: 44. The Psalms include five poetical books, from 
Job to Solomon's Song inclusive. 

The genius of Hebrew poetry is peculiar. It does not depend on 
rhyme or rhythm, meter or melody, but on parallelism, or the arrange- 
ment of thought in corresponding or parallel sentences and stanzas. 
The poetry lies rather in the relation of the thoughts than the words; 
there is a rhyme and rhythm of ideas, [p. 37] 

Job 

Key-word, ''Trial;" Key-verse, 1:9. — This book solves a problem. 
Satan asks: " Doth Job serve God for naught? " This Oriental tale is 
the answer: Uprightness may survive the loss of all temporal good. 
Disaster to property and family, and disease in his own person, together, 
could not bring Job to curse God whom he feared, nor to do the evil 
which he hated. Subordinately, another problem is here discussed, — 
the uses of adversity, [p. 41] 

Psalms 

Key-word, " Worship;" Key-verse, 29:2. — The Psalter is a book of 
devotion for the ages. Here every heart chord is touched and tuned to 
holy melody. God is here in his natural and moral attributes. Christ 
is here in his divinity and humanity, humiliation and exaltation. The 
gospel is here: sublime unfoldings of pardoning and purifying grace. 
Christian life is here, faith, hope, love; and even church history in 
outline, [p. 43] 

Proverbs 

Key-word, "Wisdom;" Key-verse, 9:10. — Here is exhibited wisdom 
in practical life, shaping character and conduct, regulating alike man's 
relations to man and to God. True wisdom develops manhood, leads to 
morality, and in its highest reach, to piety; it demands obedience to 
both tables of the law. It makes the understanding clear, the heart 
clean, the conscience pure, and the will firm. Wisdom as here personi- 
fied, corresponds to the Word, or Logos, in John. [p. 46] 

Ecclesiastes 

Key-word, "Vanity;" Key-verse, 2:11. — These "words of the 
Preacher," in a sort of monologue, record results of experience and ob- 
servation as to the life of man. Looked at from the loftiest level " under 



J 



BIBLE, KEY AVORDS TO 39 

the sun," all seems a dismal failure, " vanity and vexation." Only when 
this world and the world to come are joined, do we get the whole of life; 
only when God and man are joined by faith and obedience, do we get 
the whole of man. (See 12: 13, 14.) [p. 48] 

The Sons' of Solomon 

Key-word, ''Love;" Key -verse, 8:7. — In this dramatic poem, by a 
dialogue between Solomon and Shulamith, the maiden whom he seeks 
to attract to his harem, the temptations of the world are set forth, 
•and the victory of love and loyalty to Christ. The royal suitor and the 
Shepherd Lover are rival claimants to the Shulamite's demotion, but, 
being already affianced to the shepherd, she resists the allurements of a 
royal court and queenly rank, and remains true to her first love and 
vows. [p. 50] 

The Prophets 

Here begins the third and last division of the Old Testament. A 
prophet is not necessarily one who predicts, but one who speaks for God, 
an inspired teacher. Prediction was one form in which the divine seal 
and sanction were set upon the prophet. The prophetic and historic 
books are closely related. The Hebrew nation is always the center of 
both, and other nations are viewed only as related to this central subject 
and object, [p. 53] 

Isaiah 

Key-word, "Salvation;'' Key-verse, 53:5. — The testimony of Jesus 
is thef spirit of prophecy. This is the song of Christ, tracing the great 
facts and features of his life and work from his cradle to his crown. 
The heart of the Old Testament is the fifty-third chapter, where God's 
suffering Servant is represented as bearing our sins. Every great truth 
of the gospel is anticipated in this prophecy. Date: 759-710 b. c. [p. 56] 

Jeremiah 

Key-word, '■'■Warning ;'' Key-verse, 7:28; 46:1. — This book of bold 
rebuke towafd Judah, and prediction against Gentile nations. Is the 
trumpet blast of a reformer in the ears of a perverse people, to whom 
twenty chapters of argument and appeal are vainly addressed. Here 
Messiah appears as The Branch, the King on David's throne, the Lord 
our Righteousness; typically in Jeremiah himself, coming with a 
rejected message of repentance and salvation, [p. 59] 

Lamentations 

Key-word, ''Destruction;'' Key-verse, 2:11. — This is the minor 
strain of prophecy, a funeral dirge. The weeping prophet, whose life 
was one long martyrdom, fully identified with the sorrow of his people 
and the desolation of^ the Holy City, utters the wail of a broken heart. 
He sees the Chaldean army as the scourge of God chastising his way- 
ward people: but even his judgments call them to return. (Cf. Jesus 
weeping over Jerusalem. Luke 19: 41, 42.) [p. 61] 

Ezekiel 

Key-mord, "Visions;" Key-verse, 1:1. — Ezekiel, the prophet of the 
iron harp, remarkable for energy of utterance, was a priest by line of 
descent. He is a pure seer, who has visions of God. His pen is more 
conspicuous than his tongue, and his style is vivid and fervid. He sees 
the glory of the Lord, records its departure from the city and temple 
because of idolatry and iniquity, and, after national judgments, its re- 
turn in the latter day, and the national resurrection of Israel, [p. 63] 

Daniel 

Key^word, "Revealed Secret;" Key-verse, 2:22. — This book is not 
properly a history of Jews, Babylonians, or Daniel, being continuous 



40 BIBLE, KEY WORDS TO 

neither in matter nor in time of composition. Prophecy and history are 
intermingled; incidents, from a period of about seventy years, are 
chosen to illustrate the power of a fixed will, separation unto God, and 
the prayer of faith; God's interposition in miracle, inspiration in proph- 
ecy, providence over kings and nations, and the ministry of angels, 
[p. 65] 

The Minor Prophets 

These twelve were classed by the Jews as one book (Acts 7: 42). 
By whom they were collected is not known, but Ezra, Nehemiah, and 
Malachi may have aided in forming the canon. The period which they' 
cover, within which the major prophets also fall, extends from about 
870 to 440 B. c. The chronological order is about as follows: Joel, Jonah, 
Obadiah(?), Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habak'kuk, (Oba- 
diah?), Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. [p. 68] 

Hosea 

Key-word,, ''Return;" Key-verse, 14:9. — This message is for the 
northern kingdom, Israel, of which Hosea was a native (?). The mortal 
throes of that kingdom were at hand; and Israel, rebuked as the faith- 
less wife of a divine Husband, is bidden to return from her backslidings 
unto him. This unique Ephraimite book scarce mentions Judah, and 
does not openly refer to Jerusalem. Hosea's period spans half a century, 
[p. 71] 

Joel 

Key-word, "Judgment;'^ Key-verse, 2:13. — This pioneer of the 
prophets lived in Judah, probably in Jerusalem, in the early days of 
Joash, B. c. 870-865. Locusts and drouth are used as symbols of swarms 
of invaders and dried-up national resources. He calls a fast to remove 
the present, and avert the threatened, scourge; foretells prosperity on 
condition of repentance, and the future effusion of the Spirit, the latter 
rain after drouth, [p. 73] 

Amos 

Key-word, '' Pundshment ; " Key-verse, 4:12. — Like Tiis contempo- 
rary, Hosea, Amos wrote for Israel, and denounces the same evils, fore- 
telling overthrow by a foreign foe as the punishment for Israel's sins. 
The threats against the surrounding heathen, with which he begins, 
hold out no final hope; but Israel has promise of new deliverance and 
prosperity under the house of David, [p. 74] 

Obadiah 

Key-word, " Edom; " Key-verse, 21. Briefest of the prophecies, this 
covers the character, career, doom, and downfall of Edom, or Idumsea. 
Esau's descendants were, to the last, the foes of Jacob's — proud, bitter, 
resentful neighbors. Governed at first by dukes, and afterward by kings, 
they were in their golden age when the Israelites were at their exodus. 
When Babylon assaulted the Holy City, Edom rejoiced to join the as- 
sault. Ps. 137: 7. [p. 75] 

Jonah 

Kety-word, "Overthrow;" Key-verse, 3:2. — This prophet of Israel 
was sent on a mission to the Gentiles. Nineveh, at the apex of pride 
and prosperity, was to be warned of coming and speedy downfall. 
Jonah rightly read mercy in his warning message, and his own vindic- 
tive waywardness drove him westward instead of eastward, until in the 
belly of a great fish he learned the lesson of obedience to God and pity 
for men. [p. 76] 

Micah 

Key-word, ''Controversy;" Key-verse, 6:2. — Micah speaks both to 
Samaria and Jerusalem, but mainly to Judah. As in all genuine proph- 



BIBLE, KEY WORDS TO 41 

ecy, through present judgment future blessing appears. The Lord's con- 
troversy with his people issues in infinite compassion. Bethlehem, the 
Little, is preferred above Jerusalem, Mother of all, as the cradle of 
Messiah. He paints in unrivaled hues the character of Jehovah, who 
both passes over transgressions and overwhelms them as in the sea. 
(Cf. 7: 18-20; Ex. 12: 23; 14: 27.) [p. 78] 

Nahmn 

Key-word,, ''Full-end;'' Key-verse, 1:8, 9. — This is the burden of 
Nineveh, Jonah's warning, perhaps a century before, had led to repent- 
ance; but judgment, deferred, is not averted. God will no longer spare: 
the threat of " overthrow " now changes to that of the full-end, annihi- 
lation. In images, never surpassed in the words or thought of man, 
the doom of the vast capital is portrayed, [p. 80] 

Habakkuk 

Key-word, ''Faith;" Key-verse, 2:4. — This is the prophet of faith. 
He has a vision of the coming judgment of Judah by the Chaldean 
invasion, but a more important vision of justification by faith. His 
name, " Embrace," expresses the clinging trust that lays hold on God, 
and in his poem the central word and thought is faith, in its vital 
relation to righteousness and life's trials and triumphs. The prayer 
with which this book closes touches the summit of the sublime, [p. 81] 

Zephaniah 

Key-word, "Remnant;'' Key-verse, 1:4, 3:13. — This "compen- 
dium of all prophecy," though addressed to Judah and Jerusalem, is a 
survey of Jehovah's universal government. The whole earth is the 
theater where the Judge of all displays the grandeur of law and the 
glory of love. From every quarter, nations are chosen as examples of 
his just judgment (2:4-15). A double "remnant" is spoken of: a 
remnant of Baal that shall not escape; a remnant of Israel that shall 
survive even judgment, [p. 83] 

Haggrai 

Key-word, "Build;" Key-verse, 1:8. — Haggai heads the list of post- 
exile minor prophets. He sounds God's call to an apathetic people to 
rebuild his ruined temple. He contrasts the shame of their neglect 
with the reward of their fidelity. He promises that Jehovah will take 
pleasure in the work: the glory of the latter house shall be greater than 
of the former, for the Desire of all nations shall come and tread its 
courts, [p. 85] 

Zechariah 

Key-word, " Jealous;" Key-verse, 8:2. — -Zechariah is the prophet 
of the advent. Eight visions in one night unveil God's providence and 
grace toward the elect nation: her foes shall be destroyed, her idols 
removed, her city and temple restored, and her Messiah revealed. If 
God's promises are to be enjoyed, his precepts must be obeyed, the 
moral law outranking the ceremonial. Then fasts become feasts. Je- 
hovah is jealous for his people: his jealousy demands their purity and 
destroys their. foes. [p. 87] 

Malachi 

Key-word, " Robbery;" Key-verse, 3:8. — Malachi means "My Mes- 
senger." He was sent to denounce practices that dishonored; God and 
his worship, and to strengthen the hands of. Nehemiah in reforming 
abuses. His riiessage closes the Old I'estament. But through four cen-- 
turies of silence he foresees another messenger who is to prepare th% 



42 BIBLE, KEY WORDS TO 

way of the Lord; and the advent of the Lord himself, the greatest Mes- 
senger of all, the " Angel of the covenant." [p. 89] 

The New Testament 

is not one book, but a little library of twenty-seven, by at least seven 
different writers, and the period of its production spans about half a 
century. There is no sign of collusion, yet there is no collision. 

There is not only harmony, but progress of doctrine. Truths, 
found in germ in the Gospels, are historically illustrated in the Acts, 
doctrinally unfolded and applied in the Epistles, and symbolically pre- 
sented in the Apocalypse, [p. 92] 

The Four Gospels 

This fourfold story of Christ's life is proved genuine by its harmo- 
nious testimony and undesigned coincidences. Each presents the sub- 
ject from a different point of view, and the combination gives us, like 
a series of concentric mirrors, not an outline picture or a mere image, 
but a divine Person reflected, projected before us, like an object with 
proportions and dimensions, [p. 94] 

Matthew 

Key-word, "Kingdom; " Key-verse, 27 :37. — This recognized Hebrew 
Gospel is the true beginning of the New Testament, linking it with the 
Old. The new covenant springs from the old: hence the generation of 
Christ is traced back to David and Abraham. Messianic history fulfils 
Messianic prophecy; hence the frequent reference to prediction. The 
prophet, priest, king, in whom Old Testament prophecies, ceremonies, 
and types meet, must be Messiah, [p. 96] 

Mark 

Key-word, '* Service;" Key-verse, 10:45. — Mark is traditionally con- 
nected with Peter, who to the Romans opened the door of faith (Acts 
12: 12). This is the Gospel of the works of Christ (Acts 10: 38). Writ- 
ten for the Roman, whose watchword was " Power," it exhibits omnipo- 
tence in the mighty Miracle- Worker, and then the omnipotence of love in 
the crowning miracle of his passion and resurrection. The symbol of 
this Gospel is the sacrificial bullock; first at the plow in service, then 
on the altar in sacrifice, [p. 98] 

Luke 

Key-word, *' Son of Man;" Key-verse, 19:10. — The divinely perfect 
humanity of the Son of God is here portrayed, and his genealogy traced, 
beyond David and Abraham, to Adam. This divine Man, the second 
Adam, is to man as man, neighbor and friend, kinsman and brother. 
But he is also the Lord from heaven, the divine healer and helper, 
prophet and Saviour. Luke was Paul's friend and companion, and wrote 
especially for the Greeks, himself probably a Gentile proselyte, [p. 100] 

John 

Key^word, ''Life;" Key-verse, 20:31. — This supplements the rest, 
settling all doubt as to the proper divinity and deity of Jesus as Son, 
not only of Abraham and Adam, but of God. John lived till the first 
heresies took shape. As Moses met all heresies about creation, and led 
men back to its source in God, John met all heresies about the Messiah, 
miracle-worker, perfect man, by declaring that in the beginning the 
Word was, was with God, was God. (Cf. Gen. 1: 1 and John 1: 1.) 
The symbol of this Gospel is the eagle, [p. 102] 

Acts 

Key-word, "Witness;" Key-verse, 1:8. — This book is the Gospels 
applied, the acts of the Holy Ghost. Luke, in the Gospel, told what 



BIBLE, KEY WORDS TO 43 

Jesus " began " and here what he continued, " both to do and teach " 
by the Holy Ghost, through disciples building up the kingdom of God. 
The door of faith is opened successively to Hebrew, Roman, and Greek, 
as in the order of the Gospels. Pentecost links Old Testament prophecy 
to New Testament history. This is the book of witness, first of man, 
secondly of God. [p. 104] 

The iBpistles 

form the " church section " of the New Testament. The church, now 
founded both among Jews and Gentiles, needs the germs of doctrine, 
found in the Gospels, amplified and applied, for fuller instruction of 
believers, solution of practical problems, and exposure of errors. This 
is done in the twenty-one epistles, [p. 106] 

Romans ^ 

Key^word, ''Righteousness;'' Key-verse, 1:17. — Paul was pecul- 
iarly fitted for a great work among the Gentile nations, being by birth 
a Hebrew, by citizenship a Roman, by culture a Greek. He was divinely 
chosen to lay the foundations on which rests the whole scheme of salva- 
tion. Righteousness or justification is his theme. God's law is the only 
standard; God's righteousness the only righteousness: by sin we have 
incurred condemnation; by faith we receive justification. All have 
sinned and come short; but the righteousness of God by faith in Christ, 
becomes the righteousness, of the believer, [p. 107] 

1 Corinthians 

Key-word, ''Wisdom;'' Key-verse, 2:7, 8. — Corinth was the rival 
of Athens. The Greeks were proud of their language and literature, 
learning and logic ("speech" and "wisdom"). Paul prepares these 
epistles to meet the Greek mind. He begins by renouncing wisdom, as 
to the Romans he renounced power. He magnifies the " things of God," 
" words of God," " demonstration of the Spirit," etc., and would not use 
wisdom of words lest the cross be made of none effect, [p. 109] 

2 Corinthians 

Key-word, "Comfort;" Key-verse, 7:6, 7. — Here abound the con- 
trasts of sorrow and joy, of humiliation and exaltation. Paul had been 
sick nigh unto death and been healed; assailed as to his apostleship 
and favored with the signs of an apostle and even a rapture to the third 
heaven; judged of man, vindicated of God; harassed by the thorn in 
the flesh, sustained by all-suflBcient grace. The keynote of the closing 
message, as of the opening salutation, is " conifort." Love, grieved by 
their sins, was comforted by their repentance. (Cf. 1: 3, 4; 2:4; 
7: 6, 7.) [p. Ill] 

Galatilans 

Key^word, "Faith;" Key-verse, 3:11. — This epistle was written 
to set forth grace in contrast to law, and faith in contrast to works. 
Here for a second time we find the great center of Paul's doctrinal 
system: "The just shall live by faith," with faith now the emphatic 
word. The epistle is full of contrasts: the fiesh and its works, the 
Spirit and his fruits; circumcision and new creation; the world and 
the cross, [p. 113] 

Ephesians 

Key-word, "In Christ, One;'* Key-verse, 1:3. — In this epic of the 
New Testament is first clearly brought out identification with Christ. 
The believer is in and with Christ. (Comp. 1 Cor. 3: 21.) The church, 
as the building of which he is corner-stone, the body of which he is 
head, the bride of whom he is bridegroom, is one with him and insepa- 
rable from him. The saints are exhorted to such a life as consists with 



44 BIBLE, KEY WORDS TO 

this high calling, and the " mystery " is specially magnified, of the in- 
corporation of the Gentiles into this sacred unity, [p. 115] 

Philippians 

Key-word, ''Gain;'" Key-verse, 3:7, 14; 4:4. — This epistle is the 
disciple's balance-sheet. Paul puts on one side all that was gain to him, 
and which he counted loss for Christ. Then he puts on the other side 
all that he won by the surrender, and will yet know and attain, and he 
finds himself infinitely richer. He forgets all he has forsaken, and 
presses on for the prize. " To live is Christ; to die is gain." (Cf. 
1: 21; 3: 7, 14.) [p. 117] 

Colossians 

Key-word^ ''In Christ, Complete;" Key-verse, 2:10. — This epistle 
shows the saints, in Christ Jesus, complete, and their standing and 
privilege, rights and riches, in him. First the deity of Christ as the 
image of God is set forth; then his dignity as head of the body, and 
his identity with the church; then, the consequent dignity of the church, 
and identity with him and in him with the Father. Pre-eminence is 
his,' the true pleroma, or plenitude of being, and of this pleroma all 
saints in him partake, [p. 119] 

1 and 2 Thessalonians 

Key-word, ''Waiting;" Key-verse, 1 Thess. 1:10; 2 Thess. 3:5. — 
These two epistles both treat of the second coming of our Lord, its 
antecedent and consequent events. They rebuke Thessalonian mate- 
rialism, which inscribed on tombs, "Death is an eternal sleep; " they 
correct mistakes as to the dead saints, and the man of sin. Two aspects 
of Christ's second advent are here plainly presented: in the first, he 
comes with the trump of God to raise the dead in Christ and catch up 
the living saints; in the second, he comes with his mighty angels, 
taking vengeance on liis foes. [p. 121] 

1 and 2 Timothy 

Key-word, "Doctrine;" Key-verse, 1 Tim. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:13. — The 
epistles to Timothy, like that to Titus, are called pastoral because ad- 
dressed to individuals in charge of the flock. The object of these two 
epistles is to leave a legacy of apostolic warning and counsel for the 
direction and comfort of the church. To Timothy Paul sustained pecul- 
iar relations, as to his son in the faith, and in these letters he makes 
very femphatic the need of sound doctrine, [p. 124] 

Titus 

Key-word, " Profttalle ; " Key-^erse, 3:8, 9. — This letter is oflBcial 
rather than personal. It is addressed to an uncircumcised Greek, of all 
the fellow workers of Paul, least a Jew in character and sympathy. The 
fidelity and sagacity of Titus led Paul to trust him with special mis- 
sions, and to leave him in Crete as his own representative, to complete 
the organization of churches. Short and practical, this epistle em- 
bodies two rich and comprehensive outlines of salvation by grace (2: 11- 
14; 3: 4^8). [p. 127] 

Philemon 

Key-word, " Receive " (Intercession); Key-verse, 17. — If " Ephesians 
is the lyric," Philemon is " the idyl of the New Testament," combining 
beauty with brevity. Onesimus was a slave who had stolen, and then 
run away, from Philemon. Converted, baptized, cherished by Paul, he 
was by him sent back to his master, whom the apostle besought to 
rieceive him no longer as a slave, but a brother, and to put to Paul's 
aGcoujit any wrong he had done him as master. . [p. 129] 



BIBLE, KEY WORDS TO 45 

Hebrews 

Key-word, ''Better; " Key-verse, 11:40. — This epistle to Hebrew 
disciples is attributed to Paul. They were in danger of going back to 
Judaism, and he seeks to prevent this by showing that in every respect 
the Christian faith and church mark a great advance upon the Jewish. 
The epistle adapts itself especially to a period of persecution, and ex- 
horts and encourages these Jewish converts to let go everything else, 
but hold fast the faith and hope of the gospel, [p. 132] 

James 

Key-word, ''Works;'' Key-verse, 2:2Q. — This is the epistle of holy 
living. Great stress is laid upon works, not apart from faith, but as 
both the proof and fruit of faith. It opposes antinomianism. There 
is a morality side to the gospel. The disciple is under law, though jus- 
tified by faith. Obedience is his watchword, the obedience of faith. 
Where grace inwardly dwells, there will be a temple purified from all 
uncleanness. [p. 134] 

1 and 2 Peter 

Key-word, "Precious;'' Key-text, 1 Peter 2:7. — These epistles 
were addressed " to the elect pilgrims of the dispersion," 1. e., not to 
the Gentile churches, nor to the Hebrews who still clung to the Holy 
City and its temple; but to those who had renounced Judaism for Christ 
and the earthly Canaan for the Paradise on high. Paul went to the 
Gentiles westward, Peter to the scattered tribes eastward. (See Gal. 
2:9.) These letters are meant to comfort these Hebrew converts under 
the approach or outburst of persecutions, help them to a godly life in 
this trial and test of faith among evil men, and exhibit the government 
of God toward them and over the world, [p. 136] 

1 John 

Key-word, ''Fellowship;" Key-verse, 5;i5.— This is a general epis- 
tle, not to any local church, drawing no line between Jew and Gentile; 
written about 90 a. d., John being the only surviving apostle. Its tone 
is paternal, both in authority and affection; and prophetic, having an 
air of final decision and declaration. Its thoughts cluster about three 
grand centers, — light, love, and life. Its object is that believers may 
" know that they have eternal life, and so their joy may be full " 
(1: 4; 5: 13). [p. 138] 

2 John 

Key-word, " TTaZfc " (in Truth); Key-verse, 6. — Like Paul's to Phi- 
lemon, this is a private personal letter, addressed to an unknown Chris- 
tian woman and her pious family. It belongs to the time and bears 
the tone of the first epistle. It sets a high value on the piety of a 
mother and her household; and warns against the abuse of hospitality 
by those who would undermine holy living and propagate error. It is 
a tribute to the dignity of womanhood, wifehood, and motherhood, 
[p. 141] 

3 John 

Key-word, "Fellow Helper" (to the Truth); Key-verse, 8. — This 
letter is somewhat like the other, but it is to a man addressed by name, 
probably the Gains who was Paul's convert and host (1 Cor. 1: 14; 
Rom. 16: 23). As, in the second letter, hospitality was forbidden toward 
propagators of error, here it is especially encouraged, toward promul- 
gators of the truth. The elect lady was warned not to be partaker of 
their evil deeds; here Gains is praised as fellow helper to the truth, 
[p. 142] 

Jnde 

Key-word, "Kept;" Key-verse, 21, 24. — This, the last of the epis- 
tles, mainly addresses Hebrew converts, and hence assumes the famil- 



46 BIBLE V£KSIONS 

iarity of the reader with Old Testament history. It is a warning against 
apostasy. Faith makes faithful saints, who, contending for the faith 
and persevering, are preserved by grace and presented in glory. The 
contrast is marked between those who kept not their first estate and 
are kept for judgment, and those who keep themselves and are kept 
from falling, [p. 143] 

Revelation 

Key-word, ''Revelation'' idiroKdXv\l/is\.apokalupsis'\) ; Key-verse, 1:1. 

— Apocalypse is the opposite of mystery lixvar-npiov [musterion\) . The 
books of Daniel and of John are closely linked, and from them, with 
those of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, all Apocalyptic Itierature is 
constructed. Daniel cast light on the former days, between the captivity 
and the fall of Jerusalem; John, on the last days, from the fall of the 
Holy City to the second coming of the Lord. [p. 145] — " Keys to the 
Word,'' A. T. Pierson, pp. 1-145. Olasgow: Pickering and Inglis. 

Bible Versions, Septuagint. — Putting aside clerical mistakes and 
misreadings, and making allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, 
and haste, we note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the 
Greek version. It bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt in its use 
of Egyptian words and references, and equally evident traces of its 
Jewish composition. By the side of slavish and false literalism there 
is great liberty, if not license, in handling the original; gross mistakes 
occur along with happy renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting 
the aid of some able scholars. Distinct Jewish elements are undeniably 
there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish tradition, 
although they are much fewer than some critics have supposed. This 
we can easily understand, since only those traditions would find a place 
which at that early time were not only received, but in general circu- 
lation. 

The distinctively Grecian elements, however, are at present of chief 
interest to us. They consist of allusions to Greek mythological terms, 
and adaptations of Greek philosophical ideas. However few, even one 
well-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others, and In 
general give to the version the character of Jewish Hellenizing. In the 
same class we reckon what constitutes the prominent characteristic 
of the Septuagint version, which, for want of better terms, we would 
designate as rationalistic and apologetic. DiflBculties — or what seemed 
such — are removed by the most bold methods, and by free handling of 
the text; it need scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily. More 
especially a strenuous effort is made to banish all anthropomorphisms, 
as inconsistent with their ideas of the Deity. The superficial observer 
might be tempted to regard this as not strictly Hellenistic, since the 
same may be noted, and indeed is much more consistently carried out, 
in the Targum of Onkelos. Perhaps such alterations have even been 
introduced into the Hebrew text itself. But there is this vital differ- 
ence between Palestinianism and Alexandrianism, that, broadly speak- 
ing, the Hebrew avoidance of anthropomorphisms depends on objective 

— theological and dogmatic — the Hellenistic on subjective — philosoph- 
ical and apologetic — grounds. The Hebrew avoids them as he does 
what seems to him inconsistent with the dignity of Biblical heroes and 
of Israel. " Great is the power of the prophets," he writes; " who liken 
the Creator to the creature;" or else "a thing is written only to break 
it to the ear " — to adapt it to our human modes of speaking and 
understanding; and again, the " words of the Torah are like the speech 
of the children of men," 



BEBLiE VERSIONS 47 

But for this very purpose tlie words of Scripture may be presented 
in another form, if need be even modified, so as to obviate possible 
misunderstanding, or dogmatic error. The Alexandrians arrived at the 
same conclusion, but from an opposite direction. They had not theo- 
logical but philosophical axioms in their minds — truths which the 
highest truth could not, and, as they held, did not contravene. Only 
dig deeper; get beyond the letter to that to which it pointed; divest 
abstract truth of its concrete, national, Judaistic envelope; penetrate 
through the dim porch into the temple, and you were surrounded by a 
blaze of light, of which, as its portals had been thrown open, single rays 
had fallen into the night of heathendom. And so the truth would appear 
glorious, more than vindicated in their own sight, triumphant in that 
of others! 

In such manner the Septuagint version became really the people's 
Bible to that large Jewish world through which Christianity was after- 
ward to address itself to mankind. It was part of the case, that this 
translation should be regarded by the Hellenists as inspired like the 
original. Otherwise it would have been impossible to make final appeal 
to the very words of the Greek; still less, to find in them a mystical 
and allegorical meaning. Only that we must not regard their views of 
inspiration — except as applying to Moses, and even there only partially 

— as identical with ours. To their minds inspiration differed quanti- 
tatively, not qualitatively, from what the rapt soul might at any time 
experience, so that even heathen philosophers might ultimately be re- 
garded as at times inspired. So far as the version of the Bible was con- 
cerned (and probably on like grounds), similar views obtained at a 
later period even in Hebrew circles, where it was laid down that the 
Chaldee Targum on the Pentateuch had been originally spoken to 
Moses on Sinai, though afterward forgotten, till restored and re- 
introduced. 

Whether or not the Septuagint was read in the Hellenist syna- 
gogues, and the worship conducted, wholly or partly, in Greek, must be 
matter of conjecture. We find, however, a significant notice to the 
effect that among those who spoke a barbarous language (not Hebrew 

— the term referring specially to Greek), it was the custom for one 
person to read the whole Parashah (or lesson for the day), while among 
the Hebrew-speaking Jews this was done by seven persons, successively 
called up. This seems to imply that either the Greek text alone was 
read, or that it followed a Hebrew reading, like the Targum of the 
Easterns. More probably, however, the former would be the case, since 
both Hebrew manuscripts and persons qualified to read them, would be 
diflficult to procure. At any rate, we know that the Greek Scriptures 
were authoritatively acknowledged in Palestine, and that the ordinary 
daily prayers might be said in Greek. The Septuagint deserved this 
distinction from its general faithfulness — at least, in regard to the 
Pentateuch — and from its preservation of ancient doctrine. 

Thus, without further referring to its full acknowledgment of the 
doctrine of angels (comp. Deut. 32: 8; 33: 2), we specially mark that it 
preserved the Messianic interpretation of Genesis 49 : 10 and Numbers 
24: 7, 17, 23, bringing us evidence of what had been the generally re- 
ceived view two and a half centuries before the birth of Jesus. It must 
have been on the ground of the use made of the Septuagint in argumentj 
that later voices in the synagogue declared this version to have been 
as great a calamity to Israel as the making of the golden calf, and that 
its completion had been followed by the terrible omen of an eclipse that 
lasted three days. For the rabbis declared that upon Investigation it 
had been found that the Torah could be adequately translated only into 



48 BIBIjE versions 

Greek, and they are most extravagant in their praise of the Greek 
version of Akylas, or Aquila, the proselyte, which was made to counter- 
act the influence of the Septuagint. But in Egypt the anniversary of 
the completion of the Septuagint was celebrated by a feast in the island 
of Pharos, in which ultimately even heathens seem to have taken part. 
— " The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," Rev. Alfred Edersheim, 
M. A. Oxon., D. D., Ph. D., Vol. I. pp. 27-30. New York: Longmans, Green 
& Co., 1896. 

Bible Versions, Septuagint, or LXX. — The importance of this 
version lies in the fact that it was practically the Old Testament of the 
early church. It was used by the apostles and their converts, and is 
freely quoted in the New Testament, sometimes even when its render- 
ings vary considerably from the Hebrew. Its influence was necessarily, 
therefore, very great. . . . The version took its rise, under one of 
the early Ptolemies, from the needs of the Jews in Egypt, before the 
middle of the second century b, c; was gradually executed, and com- 
pleted hardly later than air. 100 b. c; thereafter spread into all parts. 
Its renderings reveal frequent divergence in manuscripts from the 
present Masoretic text, but show also that the translators permitted 
themselves considerable liberties in enlarging, abbreviating, transpos- 
ing, and otherwise modifying the texts they had, and in the insertion 
of materials borrowed from other sources. 

The Apocrypha. — The most noteworthy differences are in the 
departure from Jewish tradition in the arrangement of the books (this 
varies greatly; cf. Swete, " Intro, to Old Testament in Greek," II, ch. 
i), and in the inclusion in the list of the other books, unknown to the 
Hebrew canon, now grouped as the Apocrypha. These form an extensive 
addition. They include the whole of the existing Apocrypha, with the 
exception of 2 Bsdras and Prayer of Manasses. All are of late date, 
and are in Greek, though Sirach had a Hebrew original which has been 
partly recovered. They are not collected, but are interspersed among 
the Old Testament books in what are taken to be their apipropriate 
places.— The International Standard Bidle Encyclopedia, edited hy 
James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. " BiJ)le, The,'' pp. 461, 



Bible Versions, Septuagint. — Among the Greek 'versions of the 
Old Testament, the Alexandrian, or Septuagint, as it is generally 
termed, is the most ancient and valuable, and was held in so much 
esteem both by the Jews and by the first Christians, as to be constantly 
read in the synagogues and churches. Hence it is uniformly cited by 
the early Fathers, whether Greek or Latin, and from this version all the 
translations into other languages, which were anciently approved by 
the Christian church, were executed (with the exception of the Syriac), 
as the Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothic, and Old Italic or the Latin 
version in use before the time of Jerome; and to this day the Septua- 
gint is exclusively read in the Greek and most other Oriental churches. 

This version has derived its name either from the Jewish account 
of seventy-two persons having been employed to make it, or from its 
having received the approbation of the Sanhedrin, a great council of 
the Jews, which consisted of seventy, or, more correctly, of seventy-two 
persons. Much uncertainty, however, has prevailed concerning the 
real history of this ancient version; and while some have strenuously 
advocated its miraculous and divine origin, other eminent philologists 
have labored to prove that it must have been executed by several persons 
and at different times. — "An Introduction to the Critical Study and 
Knmvledge of the Holy Scriptures,'' Thomas Hartwell Home, B. D., 
Vol. II, part 1, pp. 203, 204. London: T. Cadell, 1839. 



BIBLE VERSIONS 49 

Bible Versions, Septuagint. — The most important of the ancient 
versions is the Alexandrian Greek translation, generally designated the 
LXX, and in former times sometimes the LXXII. ... 

It is certain that the translation of the Septuagint originated 
in Egypt, and in the time of the early Ptolemies received general recog- 
nition. The Jews in Egypt, whose numbers were increased by the 
transportation of thousands thither in b. c. 320, soon lost all familiarity 
with their own language. The lav/ was probably interpreted very early 
into Greek in their synagogues, just as in other places it had been 
interpreted into Aramaic. All such translations had a tendency to 
become fixed, and after a while, for practical purposes, were committed 
to writing. The Pentateuch was the first portion translated, and the 
translation of the other books followed in due time as a matter of 
course. A Greek translation of all the books was in existence prior to 
the composition of the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, 
in the prologue to which book reference is made to such a translation. 
It is, however, a matter of dispute whether Sirach's work is to be 
assigned to a date so early as b. c. 237-211, or to be brought down so 
late as b. c. 132. 

The title " LXX " was probably given to the Greek translation of 
the Holy Scriptures, because, when issued, the translation met with 
approval, and received the sanction of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The num- 
ber, " seventy-two," sprang from the conviction that such a work must 
have been the work of all Israel. But the sanction of the Sanhedrin 
was withdrawn, probably in consequence of the reaction against every- 
thing Greek, consequent on the events of the Maccabean era (b. r. 
175-135). 

The execution of a Greek translation at the request of King 
Ptolemy is noticed in the Talmud, although the number of the transla- 
tors is there reduced to five, and the birthday of the translation is 
stigmatized as a day as fatal to Israel as that on which the golden 
calf was made. . . . 

The LXX version was the production of a number of translators. 
The Pentateuch is the best portion translated; next Job and Proverbs. 
Jeremiah has been treated with peculiar freedom, and possibly rests 
upon another recension of the Hebrew text. The book of Daniel is the 
worst, though peculiarly important from an exegetical point of view. — 
"Aw Introduction to the Old Testament,'' Rev. Charles H. H. Wright^ 
D. D., Ph. D., pp. 53-56. New York: Tho^nas WhittaTcer. 

Bible Versions, Septuagint, Editions of. — The Septuagint, or 
Greek version of the Old Testament appears at the present day in four 
principal editions: 

1. Biblia Polyglotta Complutensis, a. d. 1514-1517. 

2. The Aldine edition, Venice, a. d. 1518. 

3. The Roman edition, edited under Pope Sixtus V, a. d. 1587. 

4. Facsimile edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, by H. H. Baber, 
A. D. 1816. 

The Jews of Alexandria had probably still less knowledge of He- 
brew than their brethren in Palestine; their familiar language was 
Alexandrian Greek. They had settled in Alexandria in large numbers 
soon after the time of Alexander, and under the early Ptolemies. They 
would naturally follow the same practice as the Jews in Palestine; 
and hence would arise in time an entire Greek version. But the num- 
bers and names of the translators, and the times at which different por- 
tions were translated, are all uncertain. — "A Dictionary of the Bible," 
William Smith, LL. D., pp. 604, 605, Teacher's edition. Philadelphia: 
Porter and Coates, copyright 1884. 

4 



50 ^ BIBLE VERSIONS 

Bible Versions, Ancient. — The principal ancient versions which 
illustrate the Scriptures are the Chaldee Paraphrases, generally called 
Targums, the Septuagint, or Alexandrian Greek version, and the Vul- 
gate, or Latin version. — ''Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of 
Genesis," George Bush, Vol. I, Introduction, p. ix. New York: Mark 
H. Newman, 1843. 

Targums: The Chaldee word D1;."in (targum) signifies in general any 
version or explanation; but the appellation is more particularly re- 
stricted to the versions or paraphrases of the Old Testament, executed 
in the East Aramean or Chaldee dialect, as it is usually called. . . . 
There are at present extant ten of these Chaldee paraphrases on differ- 
ent parts of the Old Testament, three of which, and those by far the 
most important, comprise the Pentateuch, viz. (1) The Targum of Onke- 
los; (2) That falsely ascribed to Jonathan, and usually cited as the 
Targum of the Pseudo-Johanthan; (3) The Jerusalem Targum. — Id., 
pp. ix, X. 

Septuagint: The early Greek version was probably termed "the 
Septuagint" because it was looked upon with favor, and possibly oflB- 
cially recognized, by the Jewish Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, which was 
composed of seventy persons. In later times, when the Jews of Pales- 
tine and Egypt became estranged from one another, and when the Greek 
version had become interwoven with the religious life of the Egyptian 
Jews, an attempt was made to claim divine sanction for the Greek trans- 
lation. The name " Septuagint " was then expounded as containing a 
reference to the number of the supposed translators, who, according to 
the legend, were divinely assisted in their task. Those translators are 
said each to have produced a translation identical in phraseology, al- 
though they had been carefully secluded and shut off from intercourse 
with one another during the performance of the work. — " Daniel and 
His Prophecies," Rev. Charles H. H. Wright, D. D., pp. 69, 60. London: 
Williams and Norgate, 1906. 

The autograph or original copy of the Septuagint version, was, most 
probably, consumed in the fire which destroyed the Alexandrian Library, 
in the time of Julius Caesar, about fifty years before the Christian era; 
but the translation was preserved by the numerous transcripts taken for 
the use of the different synagogues in Egypt, Greece, and Italy, and 
which were sure to be copied with the utmost accuracy and care. — 
''Illustrations of Biblical Literature," Rev. James Townley, D. D., Vol. 
I, p. 64. New York: Lane and Scott, 1852. 

Samaritan: The version of the Old Testament which possesses the 
longest pedigree is that which owes its existence to the Samaritans. 
Strictly speaking, it is not a version at all, as it is in the Hebrew tongue, 
though written [probably in the second century b. c] in a different 
character from that of the extant Hebrew MSS. — " Our Bible and the 
Ancient Manuscripts," Frederic G. Kenyon, M. A., Litt. D., p.. 44. Lon- 
don: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1903. 

Peshitto, or Syriac: This is the great standard version of the an- 
cient Syriac church, made not later than the third century (those schol- 
ars who hold it older than the Curetonian would say the second), and 
certainly current and in general use from the fourth century onward. 
The name means " simple " or " common," but the origin of it is un- 
known. — Id., p. 157, 



BmiiE VERSIONS 51 

Palestinian Syriac: There is yet another version of the New Testa- 
ment in Syriac, known to us only in fragments, in a different dialect of 
Syriac from all the other versions. It is believed to have been made in 
the fifth or sixth century, and to have been used exclusively in Pales- 
tine. — " Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts," Frederic G. Kenyon, 
M. A., Litt. D., p. 159. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1903. 

Coptic: [Dating probably from the middle of the third century.] 
The two most important of the Coptic versions are (a) the Memphitic 
or Bohairic version, current in Lower or Northern Egypt; and (h) the 
Thebaic or Sahidic version, current in Upper or Southern Egypt [prob- 
ably neither earlier than the fourth century]. Of these the Bohairic 
alone is complete, having been ultimately adopted as the standard Bible 
for all Egypt.— /(?., p. 76. 

Old Latin or Italic: The importance of the Old Latin version, as 
it is called, to distinguish it from the later version of St. Jerome, is 
much greater in the New Testament than in the Old. In the former, it 
is the earliest translation of the original Greek which we possess, and is 
an important evidence for the state of the text in the second century. 
In the latter it is only a version of a version, being made from the 
Septuagint, not from the original Hebrew. — Id., pp. 77, 78. 

Vulgate Versions: The Latin Vulgate [was] made by St. Jerome 
from the older Latin, Hebrew, and Greek versions about the year 400. 
This version of St. Jerome, called the Vulgate, was declared by the 
Council of Trent [1563] to be authentic. It was revised by Pope Sixtus 
V (1585) and by Pope Clement VIII (159Z) .—'' Catholic Belief," Joseph 
Fad di Bruno, D. D. (R. C.J, p. 16. New York: Benziger Brothers, © 1884. 

English Versions: About the year 1320, John Wycliffe, the great Re- 
former, was born. He was the first to translate the whole Bible into 
the English language; this translation, which occupied about twenty-two 
years, was made from the I^atin Vulgate, the Hebrew and Greek origi- 
nals being then practically unknown. — ''All About the Bible," Sidney 
Collett, p. 32, 9th edition. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. 

In 1525, William Tyndale, one of the great Protestant Reformers, 
and a contemporary of Luther, made another English translation from 
Erasmus's Greek, . . . and was the first to publish an English New 
Testament in print. This was done under great difficulties, partly at 
Cologne and partly at Worms, in exile, poverty, and distress; as he 
found it impossible to carry out this work in England, owing to Romish 
opposition. — Id., pp. 33, 34. 

In 1535 the whole Bible, Old Testament and New, was for the first 
time printed in English by Miles Coverdale, who made his translation 
from the German and Latin. This contained also the apocryphal books. 
— Id., p. 35. 

The first English Bible printed in England was the translation of 
John Hollybushe, which was issued in 1538 by John Nicholson, in South- 
wark. The great Cranmer Bible was printed between 1539 and 1541, the 
funds for its publication being supplied by Cranmer and Cromwell. — 
" The Censorship of the Church of Rome," George Haven Putnam, Litt. 
D., Vol. II, p. 31. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1906. 

The English New Testament was translated by the English College 
at Rheims, France, in 1582; and the Old Testament by the English Col- 
lege, Douay, France, in 1609. Both, as revised in the last century by 



5 2 BIBLE VERSIONS 

Bishop Challoner and others, have been republished, with notes, from 
time to time, with the approbation of the Catholic bishops. This version 
is commonly called the Douay Bible. — " Catholic Belief,'' Joseph Fad di 
Bruno, D. D. (R. C), p. 16. New York: Benziger Brothers, © 1884. 

Hebrew New Testament: In 1876 Professor Delitzsch completed his 
translation of the New Testament into Hebrew. It had been his dream 
to produce such a text as the apostles themselves might have penned, 
had they written in the " language of Canaan." — " A History of the Brit- 
ish and Foreign Bihle Society," William Canton, Vol. Ill, p. 151. Lon- 
don: John Murray, 1910. 

Bible Versions, Samaritan Pentateuch, Differences Between, 
AND Hebrew Text. — Samaritan Pentateuch, a recension of the commonly 
received Hebrew text of the Mosaic law, in use among the Samaritans, 
and written in the ancient Hebrew or so-called Samaritan character. 
The origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch has given rise to much contro- 
versy, into which we cannot here enter. The two most usual opinions 
are: (1) That it came into the hands of the Samaritans as an inher- 
itance from the ten tribes whom they succeeded; (2) That it was 
introduced by Manasseh at the time of the foundation of the Samaritan 
sanctuary on Mt. G-erizim. It differs in several important points from 
the Hebrew text. Among these may be mentioned: 

1. Emendations of passages and words of the Hebrew text which 
contain something objectionable in the eyes of the Samaritans, on 
account either of historical improbability or apparent want of dignity 
in the terms applied to the Creator. Thus in the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch no one in the antediluvian time begets his first son< after he has 
lived 150 years; but one hundred years are, where necessary, subtracted 
before, and added after, the birth of the first son. An exceedingly im- 
portant and often-discussed emendation of this class is the passage in 
Exodus 12 : 40, which in our text reads, " Now the sojourning of the 
children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty 
years." The Samaritan has, " The sojourning of the children of Israel 
[and their fathers who dwelt in the land of Canaan and in the land of 
Egypt] was four hundred and thirty years;" an interpolation of very 
late date indeed. Again, in Genesis 2: 2, "And God [?] had finished on 
the seventh day," is altered into " the sixth," lest God's rest on the Sab- 
bath day might seem incomplete. 

2. Alterations made in favor of or on behalf of Samaritan theology, 
hermeneutics, and domestic worship. — "A Dictionary of the Bihle,'' 
William Smith, LL. D., p. 685, Teacher's^ edition. Philadelphia: Porter 
and Coates, copyright 1884. 

Bible Versions, Vulgate. — As numerous corruptions crept into 
the old Latin version, Jerome in 382 set to work to revise that trans- 
lation. His first edition of the Psalter was a simple revision of the 
Itala. The revision is known as the Psalterium Roniunum, and was 
used up to the time of Pius V in the Roman Church. Portions of it 
are yet to be found in the Missal and Breviary. But the work was done 
too hastily to be satisfactory. Jerome next revised many portions of the 
Old Testament version after Origen's Hexaplar text of the Septuagint. 
Of that revision only the Psalter and the book of Job are extant. The 
revised translation of the Psalms is known as the Psalterium. Gallica- 
num, because it came into common use in Gaul. Jerome then proceeded 
to translate the Psalms directly from Hebrew, and extended his trans- 
lation to the other books of the Old Testament, inclusive of some of the 
Apocryphal books. The work was completed between a. d. 390-405. . . . 



BIBLE, GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 63 

Jerome's revised version met with the bitterest opposition, and, 
although he strove to conciliate opponents, to the serious detriment of 
the work, by adhering as closely as possible to the older version, it was 
long ere it won popular favor. Jerome dictated his translation to an 
amanuensis, and this fact, combined with the common use of the older 
version and the carelessness of the scribes, led to the serious deprava- 
tion of the translation. In process of time it was generally received, 
and termed the common version, or Vulgate. . . . The decree of the 
Council of Trent (Sess. iv., April 8, 1546) declared the Vulgate " authen- 
tic," This authorization of the Vulgate necessitated the publication 
of a standard text, and an " editio authentica " appeared under Sixtus V 
in 1590. The .edition was declared in the Papal Bull to be " vera, lerji- 
tima, authentica et induMtata in omnibus publicis pHvatisque disputa- 
tionibus [true, legitimate, authentic, and indubitable in all public and 
private disputations]." But ere it was issued many readings had to be 
emended by printed slips pasted over the printed text, and other correc- 
tions were made with the pen. A new edition, after considerable contro- 
versy both without and within the Roman Church, was issued in 1592 in 
the Pontificate of Clement VIII. The text of the latter edition is said to 
differ from the former in about three thousand places. Other editions 
followed in 1593 and in 1598, each with considerable variations. — ''An 
Introduction to the Old Testament," Rev. Charles H. H. Wright, D. D., 
Ph. D., pp. 65-67. New York: Thomas Whdttaker. 

Bible, Multitude of Manuscripts. — There are in existence today 
many thousands' of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, which have been 
copied from earlier manuscripts by Jewish scribes, etc., from time to 
time. These are the documents generally referred to when the " orig- 
inals " are now spoken of. . . . 

For the sake of simplicity, however, these existing manuscripts may 
be divided thus: 

1. -Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament; the earliest of these 
date back to the eighth century of the Christian era. 

2. Greek manuscripts of the New Testament; the earliest of these 
date back to the fourth century. 

3. Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament (known as the Septua- 
gint), translated from the Hebrew about 277 b. c; these also date back 
to the fourth century. 

4. Early translations of the Scriptures, or parts thereof, in Syriac, 
Latin, German, and other languages, of various dates. — ''All About the 
Bible," Sidney Collett, p. 14, 9th edition. 

Bible, Oldest Greek Manuscripts. — ^< : Codex Sinaiticus, found by 
Tischendorf (1844 and 1859) in the Convent of St. Catherine at the foot 
of Mt. Sinai, now preserved in St. Petersburg. Forty-three leaves of the 
Old Testament portion of the manuscript, known as the Codex Friderico- 
Augustanus, are in the library of Leipsic University. Besides twenty- 
six books of the Old Testament, of which five form the Codex Friderico- 
Augustanus, the manuscript contains the entire New Testament without 
the least break, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the first third of the Shep- 
herd of Hermas. — The New Schaft-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, Vol. II, art. " Bible Text," p. 103. 

A: Codex Alexandrinus, now in the British Museum, presented in 
1628 by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. The 
New Testament begins with Matt. 25: 6, and contains the whole except 
John 6: 50 to 8: 52, and 2 Cor. 4: 13 to 12: 6, with the First Epistle of 
Clement and part of the Second. — Ibid. 



54 BIBIiE, TRANSLATIONS OP 

Bj : Codex Vaticanus, No. 1209, in the Vatican Library. The manu- 
script contains, besides the Old Testament, the entire New Testament, 
with the exception of Heb. 9: 14 to end and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 
and Revelation. — The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, Vol. II, art. ''Bible Text,'' p. 103. 

Bx^ Codex Vaticahus 2066 (eighth century), formerly Basilian Co- 
dex 105, contains Revelation. — IMd. 

C: Codex Ephraemi (fifth century), now No. 9 in the National Li- 
brary at Paris; its text was altered in the sixth century and again in 
the ninth. In the twelfth century the original writing was washed 
off to make room for the Greek text of several ascetic works of Eph- 
raem Syrus (d. 373). Pierre Allix, at about the close of the seven- 
teenth century, noticed the traces of the old writing under the later 
characters. Wetstein in 1716 collated the New Testament part so far as 
it was legible. In 1834 and 1835 the librarian Carl Hase revived the 
original writing by the application of the Giobertine tincture (prussiate 
of potash). Tischendorf, after great labor, brought out in 1843 an edi- 
tion of the New Testament part of the manuscript, and in 1845, of the 
Old Testament fragments, representing the manuscript line for line, in 
facsimile. The codex contains portions of the Old Testament on sixty- 
four leaves, and five eighths of the New Testament. — Id., pp. 103, 104. 

Bible, Modern Vebnaculae Translations. — One of the most impor- 
tant phases of the work of the American Bible Society is the work of 
translating and revising the Scriptures, either in co-operation with other 
Bible societies and missionary organizations, or acting independently 
when necessary. This task is fundamental and of the utmost impor- 
tance. It is estimated that the Scriptures are circulated today in over 
500 languages. The Bible or some portion of it has, therefore, been 
translated into all of the great languages of the world; and it is esti- 
mated that " seven out of every ten of the human population have -had 
provided for them the gospel story in their own tongue," but it is prob- 
able that there are still 1,000 minor languages or dialects spoken by a 
limited number of people into which no portion of the Bible has yet 
been translated. In British India, 147 languages are spoken, and in 
Africa it is said, according to the census of 1911, there are about 850 
languages or dialects in use. Into some of the minor languages it will 
not be necessary to translate the Scriptures, as many tribal, unwritten 
dialects will gradually disappear or be combined with others. When 
these facts are borne in mind, one realizes how great a task still con- 
fronts the Bible societies of the world. — " Story of the American Bible 
Society" pp. 10-12. Published in 1914. 

Bible, Compared with Sacred Books of the East. — These sacred 
books are, roughly speaking, five in number, i. e., they are the only ones 
worth taking into consideration. All others are extremely insignificant 
and unimportant. 

I. The Veda of the Brahmans or Hindus. 

II. The Zend-Avesta of the Parsees or Zoroastrians. 

III. The King, or Confucian Texts of the Chinese. 

IV. The Tripitaka, or three collections of Buddhist writings. 

V. The Koran, the code of Islam, or Mohammedanism. 
Translations of these were published some few years ago by the 

University of Oxford in forty stately volumes, but these are, of course, 
not within reach of the multitude. — ''All About the Bible,'* Sidney Col- 
lett, pp. 289, 290, 9th edition. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. 



BIBLE AND SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST 55 

Veda is a Sanscrit word meaning " knowledge," or " sacred science.' 
The writings consist of four collections of hymns, detached verses, 
and sacrificial formulae; viz., (1) the Rigveda, or Veda, of praises or 
hymns, of which there are 1,028; (2) the Samaveda, or Veda of chants 
or tunes; (3) the Yajurveda, or Veda of prayers, of which there are 
only a few preserved; and (4) the Atharvaveda, or Veda of the Athar- 
vians, consisting of about twenty books of hymns to certain divine pow- 
ers, and incantations against evil powers. — ''All About the Bidle," Sid- 
ney Collett, p. 290, 9th edition. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. 

Avesta means " text " or " lore," and represents the original writ- 
ings; Zend means "commentary," and represents the comments which 
have grown around the original writings, just as the Brahmana com- 
mentaries grew around the original Sanhita of the Veda. 

Zoroaster, the celebrated sage of ancient Persia, was the supposed 
founder or reformer of the religion embodied in the Zend-Avesta. He 
flourished, according to the Parsees (who are about the only representa- 
tives of ancient Persia) about 500 b. c. He probably, however, lived — 
if, indeed, he lived at all — many centuries earlier. For " not only has 
his date been much debated; but the very fact of his historical exist- 
ence has been denied." However, some of the oldest writings of the 
Zend-Avesta are said to date some 700 or 800 b. c. — Id., pp. 294, 295. 

In addition to the actual writings of Confucius there are what are 
called the Confucian Analects, or Extracts, compiled soon after his 
death from the reminiscences of his disciples. 

Confucianism inculcates the worship of no god, and can scarcely, 
therefore, be called a religion. . . . There is no confession of sin; no 
seeking of forgiveness; no communion with God. . . . One of his tenets, 
not often referred to — viz., that it was right to tell lies on certain 
occasions — has left its terrible mark on the four hundred millions of 
China.— Jd., pp. 297, 



Buddha is said to have lived about 500 or 600 b. c, was a prince 
of one of the ruling military tribes of India, but was of Persian origin. 
His personal name was Gautama, the title " Buddha " being a Sanscrit 
word, meaning the " Enlightened One." He early discovered that all 
that life could offer was vanity and vexation of spirit; that ignorance 
was the cause of all suffering and misery, as it was the ultimate cause 
of existence itself. 

He therefore separated himself from his family and friends, and 
gave himself up to years of lonely contemplation. At length, while 
sitting under a tree near Gaya Town in Bengal, he professed to attain 
perfect wisdom by the extinction of all desires and passions of every 
kind, whether good or bad. . . . First, extinction of all desires and pas- 
sions; and secondly, extinction of individual existence — complete anni- 
hilation. This is the highest state it is possible for a Buddhist to 
reach. ... 

He himself wrote nothing. In course of time, however, his teaching 
. . . was . . . committed to writing by his disciples, and approved by 
various councils long after his death. These writings are called the 
" Tripitofco " c= triple basket, or three collections. — Id., pp. 298, 299. 

Muhammad (the Praised One), commonly called Mohammed, the 
celebrated false prophet of Arabia, was born at Mecca a. d. 570. He 
claimed to teach his followers the doctrines of Islam, i. e., resignation 
or entire submission to the will of God, as a successor to Abraham, 
Moses, and Christ, of whom he claimed to be the greatest. ... 



56 BIBLE, NUMBER IN 

At the age of forty he had his first "divine" communication. In 
this, and later visions at Mecca and Medina, extending over a period of 
twenty-three years, he received those " revelations " which are contained 
in the Koran, the sacred book of the Mohammedans, who believe that 
it has been in existence — like God — from all eternity. — " All About the 
Bible," Sidney Collett, pp. 306, 307, 9th edition. New York: Fleming H. 
Revell Company. 

Bible, Number in, the Number Seven. — In the sanctuary 7 lamps 
were kept continually burning on the 7-branched candlestick. Zechariah 
saw in vision a golden candlestick' with 7 lamps, and 7 pipes to the 7 
lamps. In the book of Revelation 7 golden candlesticks represent the 
7 churches, and 7 stars the angels of those churches. 

At the beginning of the months there were offered 7 lambs in sac- 
rifice. On the 7 days of the Passover week 7 lambs were offered daily, 
4a in all. On the day of first fruits, or Pentecost, 7 lambs were sacri- 
ficed; at the Feast of Trumpets, 7 lambs; on the Day of Atonement, 
7 lambs; and during the Feast of Tabernacles, 14 lambs each day for the 
first 7 days of the feast, and 7 lambs on the eighth, the last great day 
of the feast. During the Feast of Tabernacles 70 bullocks were offered 
on the first 7 days in the following order: 1st day, 13; 2d day, 12; 3d day, 
11; 4th day, 10; 5th day, 9; 6th day, 8; 7th day, 7; 70 in all, and on the 
8th day, 1. Numbers 28, 29. 

The leper to be cleansed from his leprosy was sprinkled with blood 
7 times (Lev. 14: 7), and the oil was "sprinkled 7 times before the 
Lord." On the great Day of Atonement, blood was sprinkled before the 
mercy-seat 7 times; it was also sprinkled on the altar 7 times. Levit- 
icus 16. 

Cain was to be avenged 7 fold, and Lamech 70 and 7 fold; Noah 
took into the ark clean beasts by sevens. Job says : In 7 troubles no evil 
shall touch thee; Joseph interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh relating to 
the 7 ears of corn and the 7 kine; Moses says God would chastise Israel 
in case of disobedience 7 times; and again, they shall go out before their 
enemies one way and flee 7 ways. Joshua, in the capture of Jericho, 
compassed the city for 7 days, and on the 7th day 7 times; 7 priests 
bore before the ark 7 trumpets of rams' horns. Elisha tells Naaman to 
wash in Jordan 7 times; Samson was bound with 7 green withs, and 
then shorn of the 7 locks of his head; Hannah says in her song of 
praise, that the barren woman hath borne 7; Jeremiah says of the deso- 
lations of Jerusalem, she that hath borne 7 languisheth; Solomon says 
the slothful man thinks himself wiser than 7 men that can give a rea- 
son; and that wisdom hews out her 7 pillars. The dissembler has 7 
abominations in his heart, and 7 things are an abomination to the Lord. 
David says, 7 times a day do I praise Thee; and, the word of God is 
like silver purified 7 times. Isaiah says, The light of the sun shall yet 
be 7 fold, as the light of 7 days; Micah tells us that on the foundation 
stone of the temple were to be engraved 7 eyes; Peter asks our Lord 
whether he ought to forgive sins 7 times, and receives the answer that 
he should forgive 70 times 7; the apostles appointed 7 men of honest 
report, and full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, to attend to the daily 
ministration in Jerusalem. John was commissioned to convey divine 
messages to the 7 churches; he saw 7 golden candlesticks before the 
throne, and 7 spirits. The lamb which he beholds has 7 horns and 7 
eyes, and opens the 7-sealed book; 7 ailgels stand before God, and to 
them are given 7 trumpets; 7 thunders utter their voices; in the earth- 
quake are slain 7 thousand; a wild beast having 7 heads rises out of 
the sea; 7 angels with 7 golden vials, having tlie 7 last plagues, issue 
from the temple. In harmony with the 7 heads of the wild beast are 



BBBLE, NUMBER IN 57 

7 mountains and 7 kings. The apocalyptic drama includes the opening 
of 7 seals, the sounding of 7 trumpets, and the pouring out of 7 vials. — 
•' Creation Centred in Christ,'' H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., pp. £63, 264. 
London: Hodder and StougMon, 1896. 

Bible, Number ix, the Number Twelve. — The number 12 is promi- 
nently connected both with the Jewish nation and the Christian church. 

The sons of Jacob and the tribes of Israel were 12. At the Elim 
halting-place, in the wilderness, were 12 wells of water; Moses built 12 
pillars according to the 12 tribes of Israel; 12 loaves of showbread were 
presented in the tabernacle. The high priest bore the names of the 12 
tribes of Israel engraved on the 12 stones of the breastplate; the 12 
princes of Israel brought 12 oxen, 12 pitchers, 12 silver bowls, etc. 
Moses took 12 rods, according to the tribes; 12 men representing the 
tribes searched the Land of Promise, and Joshua commanded 12 men 
representing the 12 tribes of Israel to take 12 stones from the place 
where the priests who bore the ark stood on dry ground in the midst of 
Jordan, and to carry them to the place where the people lodged after 
the passage of the river, and also to set up 12 stones in the midst of 
Jordan as a memorial. Elijah took 12 stones " according to the number 
of the tribes of Jacob, unto whom the word of the Lord came, saying, 
Israel shall be thy name," and with the stones he built an altar in the 
name of the Lord. Solomon placed 12 officers over Israel ; the sea in the 
temple stood on 12 oxen. The Ezekiel altar was 12 cubits long and 12 
broad. In the miracle of the multiplying of the loaves they took up of 
the fragments 12 baskets full. The apostle Paul speaks of " our 12 
tribes, instantly serving God day and night," while the apostle James 
addresses himself to " the 12 tribes scattered abroad." In founding the 
Christian church, which was, so to speak, a new Israel, our Lord chose 
12 apostles, who are frequently called, in consequence, " the twelve." 
" Have not I chosen you twelve? " " Then came the twelve and said 
unto him;" "the twelve were with him." " In the evening he cometh 
with the twelve." " He sat down and called the twelve." " He took again 
the twelve." Our Lord promised to his apostles that they should sit on 
12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. When betrayed into the 
hands of his enemies, and about to be forsaken by his apostles, our Lord 
said to Peter, " Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, 
and he shall presently give me more than 12 legions of angels? " The 
symbolical sun-clothed woman in the Apocalypse has on her head a 
crown of 12 stars. The New Jerusalem has 12 gates, and at the gates 
12 angels, and on the 12 gates are written the names of the 12 tribes 
of Israel. The city has also 12 foundations, and in them are the names 
of the 12 apostles of the Lamb. The 12 gates are 12 pearls, while the 
tree of life in the midst of the city bears 12 manner of fruits. Of each 
of the 12 tribes of Israel there are sealed 12 thousand. The New Jeru- 
salem is foursquare, each side measuring 12 thousand furlongs. The 
redeemed on Mount Zion are 12 times 12 thousand in number. — Jd., 
pp. £64, 265. 

Bible, The French Con'fessiojst of Faith (a. d. 1559) on. — Art. V. 
We believe that the Word contained in these books has proceeded from 
God. ... It is not lawful for men, nor even for angels, to add to it, to 
take away from it, or to change it. Whence it follows that no authority, 
whether of antiquity, or custom, or numbers, or human wisdom, or 
judgments, or proclamations, or edicts, or decrees, or councils, or visions, 
or miracles, should be opposed to these Holy Scriptures. — " The Creeds 
of the Evangelical Protestant Churches,'" Philip Schaff, p. 362. London: 
Hodder and StougMon, 1877. 



5S BIBLE, CONFESSIONS ON 

Bible, CoNGREGATiONALisTS ON. — Standing by the rock where the 
Pilgrims set foot upon these shores, upon the spot where they wor- 
shiped God, and among the graves of the early generations, we, elders 
and messengers of the Congregational churches of the United States in 
National Council assembled — like them acknowledging no rule of faith 
but the Word of God — do now declare our adherence to the faith and 
order of the apostolic and primitive churches. — Declaration of Faith of 
the National Council of Congregational Churches, held at Boston, Ma^s., 
June 14-24, 1865, 'par. 1; cited in " The Creeds of the Evangelical Prot- 
estant Churches," Philip Schaif, p. 734. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 
1877. 

Bible, The Belgic Confession (a. d. 1561) on. — Art. VII. We be- 
lieve that these Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that 
whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation, is suflSciently taught 
therein. — " The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches," Philip 
Schaft, pp. 387, 388. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877. 

Bible, The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England on. 

— VI. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so 
that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to 
be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the 
faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. — Id., p. 489. 

XX. . . . It is not lawful for the church to ordain anything that is 
contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of 
Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. — Id., p. 500. 

Bible, The New Hampshire Baptist Confession (a. d. 1833) on. 
— We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, 
and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its 
author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for 
its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; 
and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true 
center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human 
conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried. 

[This confession was drawn up by the Rev. John Newton Brown, 
D. D., of New Hampshire (b. 1803, d. 1868), about 1833, and has been 
adopted by the New Hampshire Convention and widely accepted by 
Baptists, especially in the Northern and Western States, as a clear and 
concise statement of their faith, in harmony with the doctrines of older 
confessions, but expressed in milder form. The text is taken from the 
" Baptist Church Manual," published by the American Baptist Publica- 
tion Society, Philadelphia.] — Id., p. 742. 

Bible, Confession of the Freewill Baptists (a. d. 1834, 1868) on 
the Holy Scriptures. — These are the Old and New Testaments; they 
were written by holy men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and contain 
God's revealed will to man. They are a sufficient and infallible guide in 
religious faith and practice. 

[This confession was adopted and issued by the General Conference 
of the Freewill Baptists of America in 1834, revised in 1848, and again 
in 1865, and 1868. The text is taken from the " Treatise on the Faith 
and Practice of the Freewill Baptists," written under the direction of 
the General Conference, Dover, N. H.] — Id., p. 749. 

Bible, Methodist Articles of Religion (a. d. 1784) on. — V. The Holy 
Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever 
is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of 



BIBLE, SUPPRESSION OP 59 

any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought 
requisite or necessary to salvation. . . . 

VI. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the 
Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, 
who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and 
man. Wherefore they are not to be heard who feign that the old fathers 
did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God 
by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, doth not bind Christians, 
nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any com- 
monwealth, yet, notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from 
the obedience of the commandments which are called moral. — " The 
Greeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches'' Philip Schaft, p. 808. 
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877. 

Bible, Suppression of. — It was in regard of translations for the 
laity, and when, as the result of reading them, the laity came to see 
something different in religion from the doctrines of the priests and 
Papacy, that the trial of principle arose. And what then? Says Sis- 
•mondi, in his "Albigensian Crusade," p. 226: "Forasmuch as the here- 
tics supported their doctrine by the authority of Holy Scripture, the 
first indication of heresy at that time [soon after 1200 a. d.] was con- 
sidered to be the citation of either the epistles or Gospels." 

In 1229 the Council of Thoulouse prohibited the laity from possess- 
ing the Scriptures. So again, about 1270, James I, king of Arragon, 
passed a law that whoever possessed any of the books of the Old or 
New Testament in the Romance or vulgar tongue, and did not bring 
them to the bishop to be burned, should be considered suspected of 
heresy. (Townley.) 

About 1400 the Decree of Pope Alexander V, which condemned all 
translations into the vulgar tongues, caused the suppression to be 
more decided and universal through Western Christendom. In Eng- 
land, for example, Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury, decreed in 
convocation that neither Wycliffe's translation, nor any other in the 
English tongue, should be read till approved by the bishop; and 
several persons were burned, as appears from bishops' registers, for 
refusing compliance, and reading Wycliffe's translation. (See Gray's 
Key; also Townshend's " Preliminary Essay to Foxe," p. 255, etc.) Soon 
after, in 1413, a law was passed by Henry V, decreeing that all Lollards, 
or those who possessed or read Wycliffe's books (especially his New 
Testament) should forfeit lands, cattle, goods, body, life, and be con- 
demned for heretics to God, enemies to the crown, and arrant traitors 
to the land. (Townley; and also LeBas' Wicliff, 241.) 

Once more, at the Council of Constance in 1415, Gerson complained 
of " many laymen among the heretics having a version of the Bible in 
the vulgar tongue, to the great prejudice of the Catholic faith;" adding, 
" It has been proposed to reprove this scandal in the Committee of 
Reform." (Waddington, p. 692.) — " Horce Apocalypticw," Rev. E. B. 
Elliott, A. M., Vol. II, p. £1, 3d edition. London: Seeley, Bumside, and 
Seelep, 1847. 

Buddhism, Creed of. — Buddhism has cherished from the begin- 
ning a strong didactic instinct which impelled it to formulate its ethi- 
cal and religious truths in picturesque groups which lend themselves 
to ready memorizing both by monk and by lay brother and even by 
young children, and constitute an obvious catechetic basis of instruc- 
tion. It proclaims a set of four noble truths, a cluster of three gems, 
the twelve sentences, the eightfold path, the five or eight or ten vows, 



60 BUDDHISM, PHILOSOPHY OF 

over against the ten fetters, — formulae which are models of vivid teach- 
ing, and move our admiration. It has, indeed, an explicit creed or pro- 
fession in universal use at the admission of catechumens to the order 
or to lay association, the refuge formula or " the three guiding stars." 

"I take my refuge in the Buddha (the enlightened one); I take 
my refuge in the Dhamma (law or doctrine) ; I take my refuge in the 
Sangha (brotherhood of the elect, or order)," 

This confession of the Buddhist trinity — Saviour, gospel-law, and 
church — appears in slightly varied forms throughout the liturgies 
and sacred books, e. g. in the chant, " In close heart-communion we 
adore the eternal Buddha, the eternal law, the eternal order," which is 
incorporated in a pious Chinese emperor's service book of the fifteenth 
century a. d. It is noteworthy that King Asoka, the Buddhist Constan- 
tine, in the edicts which he carved in stone in the third century b. c, 
combined a zeal for confession, " Confess and believe in God, who is the 
worthy object of obedience," with a passion for tolerance, " A man 
should honor his personal creed, but not blame his neighbor's. . . . 
He who acteth otherwise impaireth his own creed and injureth that 
of others. The man, whoever he be, who possesseth his own creed, 
and blameth that of others, saith, * Let us set up our own religion in 
full light,' — that man, I say, doeth much injury to his own creed. 
Wherefore religious harmony alone is good. ... I pray with every 
manner of prayer for those who differ from me in creed, that they, 
following my right example, may with me attain unto eternal salva- 
tion." — "A History of Greeds and Confessions of Faith," William A. 
Curtis, B. D., D. Litt., pp. 14, 15. New York: Charles Sorihner's Sons, 
1912. 

Buddhism, Philosophy of. — If this pessimism is to be understood 
in its basis and in its essence, it ought to be studied in and through 
the conditions which created what we have termed its most perfect 
expression — the philosophy of Buddhism. 

Let us distinctly conceive the conditions under which the system 
arose. It stood in a twofold antithesis to the speculative tendencies it 
found in India, even though it was a dialectical evolution from them. 
The philosophy that made it was that of the ascetic communities, or 
the forest schools, where men cultivated the meditation by which they 
hoped to escape from the conditions of their mortal being. In these 
schools there was a kind of aristocracy both of blood and of idea. 
The scholars sprang from the castes of the twice born, i. e., they were 
men of Aryan descent; and the ideas on which they meditated had been 
born of the Aryan mind, and were rooted in its experience and history. 
They conceived man as an emanation from the great abstract Being 
whom they had evolved from their old and simple theistic beliefs.' 

This Being was not personal and masculine, but abstract and 
neuter, a substance or essence rather than a God. They called him 
now Brahma, now Atman or Paramatman, Soul or Supreme Soul, now 
the One or the That, which breathed breathless, within whom had some- 
how arisen a sort of dim desire to realize himself, whence had come 
creation and all the souls of men. These souls were like so many 
atoms singly and collectively imperishable, each capable of conversion, 
but incapable of destruction; all issued from Brahma, all were des- 
tined to absorption in Brahma; but from the moment of origin to the 
moment of absorption — points infinitely remote from each other — 
there ceaselessly revolved the wheel of existence, and they with it. 

And this wheel, to which all being was bound and with which all 
moved, carried the individualized soul, or the separated atom, round 
and round in cycles and epicycles of incalculable change till the su- 



BULLS AND BRIEFS 61 

preme moment arrived when he could escape from it back into the un- 
differentiated and undistributed Brahma. In one age he might be born 
a man, in another a wild beast ravening in the forest; in his human 
cycle he might move downward from king to beggar, or upward from 
low-born fool and sinner to high-born sage and saint, or he might fall 
from the seraphic to the demoniac state; in one existence he might live 
like a god, in another he might be humiliated to the lowest ranks of the- 
brute creation. But rest, the end he was bound ever to seek and to 
crave, was of all things the hardest to attain; and here the cruel and 
inexorable partiality of the conditions which regulated these changes 
appeared, [pp. 118, 119] . . . 

With the Hindu schools, Buddha said: " If we live today, it is be- 
cause we have in some past existence accumulated the merit that calls 
for reward, or the demerit that cries for punishment. Merit is only a 
less evil than demerit, for it maintains in being, and by means of this 
continuance perpetuates the eternal possibility of some downward 
change through some act of conscious or unconscious sin." And then 
he added: " In order to escape from being we must escape equally from 
merit and demerit; but to do this we cannot live among men, where we 
must do the things which entitle to penalty or reward. We must 
retire from the world, and cultivate the suppression of the very desire 
to live, the surrender of the capability to act, the quenching of the 
thirst that by goading us into action binds by merit or demerit to the 
wheel of life. When we have ceased to desire, we shall cease to will, 
cease to act, to acquire, or to lose merit. The law that maintains being 
and enforces change will then cease to operate, and released from the 
ever-revolving wheel, we shall attain Nirvana and return no more." — 
" The Philosophy of the Christian Religion,'' Andrew Martin Fairbairn, 
M. A., D. D., LL. D., pp. 117-121. Neiv York: George H. Djoran Company, 
copyright 1902. 

Bullarium. — Bullarium is a term commonly applied to a collection 
of bulls and other analogous papal documents, whether the scope of the 
collection be quite general in character, or whether it be limited to the 
bulls connected with any particular order, or institution, or locality. — 
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. Ill, art. "Bullarium,'' p. 48. 

Bulls and Briefs. — A bulla was originally a circular plate or boss 
of metal, so called from its resemblance in form to a bubble floating upon 
water (Lat. hullire. to boil). In course of time the term came to be 
applied to the leaden seals with which papal and royal documents were 
authenticated in the early Mi-ddle Ages, and by a further development 
the name, from designating the seal, was eventually attached to the 
document itself. This did not happen before the thirteenth century and 
the name " bull " was at first only a popular term used almost promiscu- 
ously for all kinds of instruments which issued from the papal chan- 
cery. A much more precise acceptation has prevailed since the fifteenth 
century, and a bull has long stood in sharp contrast with certain other 
forms of papal documents. For practical purposes a bull may be con- 
veniently defined to be " an apostolic letter with a leaden seal," to 
which one may add that in its superscription the Pope invariably takes 
the title of episcopus, servus servorum Dei [bishop, servant of the serv- 
ants of God]. 

In official language papal documents have at all times been called 
by various names, more or less descriptive of their character. For 
example, there are " constitutions," i. e., decisions addressed to all the 
faithful and determining some matter of faith or discipline; "encycli- 
cals." which are letters sent to all the bishops of Christendom, or at 



62 CALENDAR, DAY 

least to all those of one particular country, and Intended to guide them 
in their relations with their flocks; " decrees," pronouncements on 
points affecting the general welfare of the church; "decretals" (epis- 
tolce decretales), which are papal replies to some particular difficulty 
submitted to the holy see, but having the force of precedents to rule 
all analogous cases, " Rescript," again, is a term applicable to almost 
any form of apostolic letter which has been elicited by some previous 
appeal, while the nature of a " privilege " speaks for itself. But all 
these, down to the fifteenth century, seem to have been expedited by the 
papal chancery in the shape of bulls authenticated with leaden seals, 
and it is common enough to apply the term " bull " even to those very 
early papal letters of which we know little more than the substance, 
independently of the forms under which they were issued. — The Catholic 
Encyclopedia, Vol. Ill, art. " Bulls and Briefs,'" pp. 52, 53. 

Bulls, In Ccena Domini. — In Coena Domini : A papal bull issued 
annually on Holy Thursday for several centuries, famous in European 
history as formulating the condemnation of numerous heresies. . . . 
In its latest form the bull begins with an excommunication of various 
heretics and schismatics individually, and condemns also those who 
appeal from papal decrees to a general council, pirates, wreckers, etc. 
It is not to be wondered at that this bull was regarded by secular pow- 
ers as an infringement of their rights and its proclamation prbhibited. 
Clement XIV discontinued its publication at Rome in 1770, and Pius 
IX finally abolished it by the constitution ApostoUcw sedis of Oct. 12, 
1869, though this constitution is in certain points, especially as con- 
cerns heretics, practically a repetition of the Bulla Coenas. — The New 
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Yol. Y, art. ''In 
Owna Domini," pp. 471, 472. 

9 

Calendar, Day, Methods of Reckoning Hours of. — The time 
when this [the trial of Jesus] occurred, is fixed by John, " about the 
sixth hour." This is the only note of time for the trial i)efore Pilate 
with the exception of that of its commencement. It is therefore of 
great value to us. And yet it appears directly to contradict Mark 15: 
25, which even places our Lord's crucifixion at the third hour. [pp. 372, 
373] . . . Now since the reading ^kxtj [hekte, sixth] stands critically un- 
assailable, we are driven to assume that John has here reckoned his 
hours from another initial point from that adopted by the Synoptists. 
[p. 374] . . . The chronologer Ideler, whose opinion on such subjects 
demands the utmost respect, remarks, bringing a crowd of passages in 
proof: 

" The case was entirely different as regards the hours with ourselves 
and the ancients. However much the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, 
and Romans differed from one another in the commencement of the 
civil day, they all reckoned their hours in the same manner. They di- 
vided the natural day^ as well as the night into twelve hgurs all 
through the year, reckoned from the rising of the sun to its setting, and 
again from its setting to its rising, so that midday corresponded with 
the beginning of the seventh hour of the day, and midnight with that 
of the seventh hour of the night." [pp. 376, 377] 



^ By the expression " natural day," as opposed to the arUficial, or as Cen- 
sorinus says, the civil day, incrading both day and night, we understand the 
time from the rising to the setting of the sun ; or, in Pliny's words, " vulgus 
omne a luce ad tenehras." Since the length of the day and night are constantly 
varying, it is plain that the twelve parts or hours into which both are divided 
were continually varying also. The length of the variable hours of the day and 
night must therefore have been separately calculated for every degree of lati- 
tude, and every day of the year. At the time of the equinoxes, and therefore 
at the time of the Passover, the sixth hour would correspond nearly to our 
12 noon. It is the natural day that is intended in John 11 : 9, for the artificial 
day had always twenty-four hours. 



CALENDAR, JEWISH 63 

There is no doubt that the fact that even those nations who com- 
menced their civil day at midnight reckoned their hours by the rising 
and setting of the sun, is connected with the imperfection of the meas- 
ures of time then in use, which for a long period could only have been 
employed for the determination of the variable hours, . . . which were 
fixed by the length of the natural day, or the time from sunrise to 
sunset, and also by the circumstance that various expedients were 
adopted to supply the deficiencies of those measures, the whole of which, 
however, were calculated by the length of the natural day. 

The use of hours of variable length was not generally laid aside 
until the invention of clockwork in the twelfth century. Some time, 
however, before the birth of. our Lord, hours corresponding to one 
twenty-fourth part of the civil day became generally known. It was 
only at the time of the equinoxes (and therefore at the 15th of Nisan). 
that those hours exactly corresponded with the variable hours. And 
therefore at that time the hours of the civil day could be counted from 
midnight, without interfering with the methods usually adopted for 
measuring time. 

This is what John must have done in the passage in question. 
And he did so all the more readily as the feast he was about to speak 
of, viz., the 15th of Nisan, as distinguished from the Passover of the 
preceding evening, began in obedience to Ex. 12 : 29, exactly at midnight. 
, . . That the hours are reckoned in this way by John will be plain 
to every reader of his Gospel, if not from his acquaintance with the 
evangelical narrative, yet from the relation the fact therein stated 
bears to the celebration of the festival then kept, the 15th of Nisan. — 
"A Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels" Karl Wieseler, trans- 
lated hy the Rev. Edmund Yenables, M. A., pp. 372-377. Cambridge: 
Deighton, Bell & Co., 1864. 

Calendar, Jewish. — The Romans had two different computations 
of their days, and two denominations for them. The one they called 
the civil, the other the natural day; the civil day was from midnight 
to midnight; and the natural day was from the rising to the setting 
sun. The natural day of the Jews varied in length according to the 
seasons of the year: the longest day in the Holy Land is only fourteen 
hours and twelve minutes of our time; and the shortest day, nine 
hours and forty-eight minutes. This portion of time was at first di- 
vided into four parts (Nehemiah 9:3); which, though varying in 
length according to the seasons, could nevertheless be easily discerned 
from the position or appearance of the sun in the horizon. Afterward 
the natural day was divided into twelve hours, which were measured 
from dials constructed for that purpose. . . . The Jews computed 
their hours of the civil day from six in the morning till six in the 
evening; thus their first hour corresponded with our seven o'clock; 
their second to our eight; their third to our nine, etc. 

The knowledge of this circumstance will illustrate several passages 
of Scripture, particularly Matthew 20, where the third, sixth, ninth, and 
eleventh hours (verses 3, 5, 6, 9) respectively denote nine o'clock in 
the morning, twelve at noon, three and five in the afternoon. (See also 
Acts 2: 15; 3: 1; 10: 9, 30.) The first three hours (from six to nine) were 
their morning: during the third hour, from eight to nine, their morn- 
ing sacrifice was prepared, offered up, and laid on the altar precisely at 
nine o'clock; this interval they termed the preparation (vapaa-Kevri [para- 
skeud'\). Josephus confirms the narrative of the evangelists. As the 
Israelites went out of Egypt at the vernal equinox, the morning watch 
would answer to our four o'clock in the morning. 



64 CALENDAR, JEWISH 

Before the captivity the night was divided into three parts, or 
watches. Ps. 63: 6; 90: 4. The first or beginning of watches is men- 
tioned in Lamentations 2: 19; the middle watch in Judges 7: 19; and 
the morning watch, or watch of daybreak, in Exodus 14: 24. It is 
probable that these watches varied in length according to the seasons 
of the year; consequently those who had a long and inclement win- 
ter watch to encounter, would ardently desire the approach of morn- 
ing light to terminate their watch. This circumstance would beauti- 
fully illustrate the fervor of the psalmist's devotion (Ps, 130: 6), as well 
as serve to explain other passages of the Old Testament. These three 
watches are also mentioned by various profane writers. 

During the time of our Saviour, the night was divided into four 
watches, a fourth watch having been introduced among the Jews from 
the Romans, who derived it from the Greeks. The second and third 
watches are mentioned in Luke 12: 38; the fourth in Matthew 14: 25; 
and the four are all distinctly mentioned in Mark 13:35. "Watch, 
therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh; at 
even ( 6i//^ Lopse'], or the late watch), or at midnight ifiea-oviJKTLov Imeso- 
nuktion] ) , or at the cockcrowing ( oXeKTopocfxavias lalektorophoniasi ) , or 
in the morning ( irpiot lpr6i'\, the early watch). Here, the first watch was 
at even, and continued from six till nine; the second commenced at nine 
and ended at twelve, or midnight; the third watch, called by the Romans 
gallicinium, lasted from twelve to three; and the morning watch closed 
at six. A double cockcrowing, indeed, is noticed by St. Mark (14: 30), 
where the other evangelists mention only one. Matt. 26: 34; Luke 22: 
34; John 13: 38. But this may be easily reconciled. The Jewish doc- 
tors divided the cockcrowing into the first, second, and third; the 
heathen nations in general observed only two. As the cock crew the 
second time after Peter's third denial, it was this second or principal 
cockcrowing (for the Jews seem in many respects to have accommodated 
themselves to the Roman computation of time) to which the evange- 
lists Matthew, Luke, and John refer. Or, perhaps, the second cockcrow- 
ing of the Jews might coincide with the second of the Romans. 

It may be proper to remark that the word " hour " is frequently 
used with great latitude in the Scriptures, and sometimes implies the 
space of time occupied by a whole watch. Matt, 25: 13; 26: 40; Mark 
14: 37; Luke 22: 59; Rev, 3: 3. Perhaps the third hour mentioned in 
Acts 23: 23 was a military watch of the night. 

The Jews reckoned two evenings: the former began at the ninth 
hour of the natural day, or three o'clock in the afternoon; and the lat- 
ter at the eleventh hour. Thus the paschal lamb was required to be 
sacrificed "between the evenings" (Ex, 12: 6; Lev. 23: 4); which, Jo- 
sephus tells us, the Jews in his time did, from the ninth hour until the 
eleventh. Hence the law, requiring the paschal lamb to be sacrificed 
"at even, at the going down of the sun" (Deut. 16: 6), expressed both 
evenings. It is truly remarkable that " Christ our passover," the anti- 
type of the paschal lamb, " expired at the ninth hour, and was taken 
down from the cross at the eleventh hour, or sunset." 

Seven nights and days constituted a week; six of these were appro- 
priated to labor and the ordinary purposes of life, and the seventh day, 
or Sabbath, was appointed by God to be observed as a day of rest, 
" because that on it he had rested from all his work which God had cre- 
ated and made." Gen. 2: 3. This division of time was universally ob- 
served by the descendants of Noah. . . . 

The Hebrews had their months, which, like those of all other an- 
cient nations, were lunar ones, being measured by the revolutions of 
the moon, and consisting alternately of twenty-nine and thirty days. . . . 



CALENDAR, JEWISH 65 

Originally, the Jews had no particular names for their months, 
but called them the first, second, etc. Thus the deluge began in the 
second month, and came to its height in the seventh month, at the end 
of 150 days (Gen, 7: 11-24; 8: 4); and decreased until the tenth month, 
v/hen the tops of the mountains were seen. Gen. 8: 5. Afterward they 
acquired distinct names; thus Moses named the first month of the year 
"Abib" (Ex. 12: 2; 13: 4), signifying green, from the green ears qf 
corn at that season; for it began about the vernal equinox. The second 
month was named " Zif," signifying in Chaldee glory or splendor; in 
which the foundation of Solomon's temple was laid. 1 Kings 6: 1. The 
seventh month was styled " Ethanim," which is interpreted harvests 
by the Syriac version. 1 Kings 8: 2. The eighth month "Bui," from 
the fall of the leaf. 1 Kings 6: 38. But concerning the origin of these 
appellations critics are by no means agreed: on their return from the 
Babylonish captivity, they introduced the names which they had found 
among the Chaldeans and Persians. Thus, the first month was also 
called " Nisan," signifying flight, because in that month the Israelites 
were thrust out of Egypt (Ex. 12: 39) ; the third month, " Sivan," signi- 
fying a l)ram1)le (Esther 3:7; Neh. 2:1); and the sixth month 
" Elul," signifying mour'ning, probably because it was the time of prepa- 
ration for the great day of atonement on the tenth day of the sev- 
enth month. Neh. 6: 15. The ninth month was called " Chisleu," sig- 
nifying chilled, when the cold weather sets in, and fires are lighted. 
Zech. 7: 1; Jer. 36: 22. The tenth month was called " Tebeth," signi- 
fying miry. Esther 2 : 16. The eleventh, " Shebet," signifying a staff 
or a scepter. Zech. 1: 7. And the twelfth " Adar," signifying a mag- 
nificent mantle, probably from the profusion of flowers and plants with 
which the earth then begins to be clothed in warm climates. Ezra 
6: 15; Esther 3:7. It is said to be a Syriac term. 2 Mac. 16: 36. 

The Jews had four sorts of years, — one for plants, another for 
beasts, a third for sacred purposes, and the fourth was civil and com- 
mon to all the inhabitants of Palestine. 

1. The year of plants was reckoned from the month corresponding 
with our January; because they paid tithe-fruits of the trees which 
budded at that time. 

2. The second year was that of beasts; for when they tithed their 
lambs, the owner drove all the flock under a rod, and they marked the 
tenth, which was given to the Levites. They could, however, only take 
those which fell in the year, and this year began at the month Elul, or 
the beginning of our August. 

But the two years which are the most known are the civil and 
ecclesiastical years. 

3. The civil year commenced on the fifteenth of our September, 
because it was an old tradition that the world was created at that 
time. From this year the Jews computed their jubilees, dated all con- 
tracts, and noted the birth of children and the reign of kings. It is 
said also that this month was appointed for making war; because, the 
great heats being passed, they then went into the field. In 2 Samuel 
11:1 we read that " David sent Joab and his servants with him, and all 
Israel, to destroy the Ammonites, at the return of the year [marginal 
rendering], at the time when kings go forth to battle," that is, in the 
month of September. 

The annexed table exhibits the months of the Jewish civil year with 
the corresponding months of our computation: 

1. Tisri corresponds with part of September and October 

2. Marchesvan October and November 

3. Chisleu, or Kisleu November and December 

4. Thebet December and January 

5 



66 CALENDAR, JEWISH 

5. Sebat January and February 

6. Adar February and March 

7. Nisan, or Abib March and April 

8. Jyar, or Zif April and May 

9. Sivan May and June 

10. Thammuz June and July 

11. Ab July and August 

12. Elul August and September 

Some of the preceding names are still in use in Persia. 

4. The ecclesiastical or sacred year began in March, or on the first 
day of the month Nisan, because at that time they departed out of 
Egypt. From that month they computed their feasts, and the prophets 
also occasionally dated their oracles and visions. Thus Zechariah 
(7:1) says that " the word of the Lord came unto him in the fourth " day 
" of the ninth month," even in Chisleu; which answers to our November, 
whence it is evident that he adopted the ecclesiastical year, which com- 
menced in March. The month Nisan is noted in the Old Testament for 
the " overflowings of Jordan " (Joshua 3:15; J. Chron. 12:15), which were 
common at that season, the river being swollen by the melted snows 
that poured in torrents from Mt. Lebanon. 

The following table presents the months of the Jewish ecclesias- 
tical year, compared with our months: 

1. Nisan, or Abib, (Neh. 2:1; Esther 3:7) 

answers to part of March and April 

2. Jyar, or Zif April and May 

3. Sivan (Esther 8:9) May and June 

4. Thammuz ., June and July 

5. Ab July and August 

6. Elul (Neh. 6: 15) , August and September 

7. Tisri September and October 

8. Marchesvan October and November 

9. Kisleu, or Chisleu (Zech. 7:1; Neh. 1: 1) 

November and December 

10. Thebet December and January 

11. Sebat (Zech. 1:7) January and February 

12. Adar (Ezra 6: 15; Esther 3:7) February and March 

The Jewish months being regulated by the phases or appearances 
of the moon, their years were consequently lunar years, consisting of 
twelve lunations, or 354 days and 8 hours; but as the Jewish festivals 
were held not only on certain fixed days of the month, but also at 
certain seasons of the year, consquently great confusion would, in 
process of time, arise by this method of calculating. The spring month 
sometimes falling in the middle of winter, it became necessary to ac- 
commodate the lunar to solar years, in order that their months, and 
consequently their festivals, might always fall at the same season. 
For this purpose, the Jews added a whole month to the year as often 
as it was necessary, which occurred commonly once in three years, 
and sometimes once in two years. This intercalary month was added 
at the end of the ecclesiastical year after the month Adar, and was 
therefore called Ve-Adar, or the second Adar: but no vestiges of such 
intercalation are to be found in the Scriptures. — "An Introduction to 
the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures," Thomas 
Hartwell Home, B. D., Vol. Ill, pp. 168-174. London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

Calendar, Hours of Day and Night. — Each month [in Egyptian 
chronology] was divided into three decades (the Egyptians do not 
seem to have ever used, or even known, the week of seven days) ; each 
day into twenty-four hours, twelve hours of actual day time and twelve 



CALENDAR, WEEK 67 

hours of actual night time. The hours of day and night, consequently, 
were not always of the same length. The sixth hour of night corre- 
sponded to midnight, and the sixth hour of day to noon. — The Catholic 
Encyclopedia, Vol. V, art. " Egypt," p. 333. 

Calendar, Jewish Week. — The week consists of seven days, dis- 
tinguished from one another by their place in the week. They are 
called the first day, the second day, the third day, and so on to the 
seventh day, which is besides called " Shal>l)at " (rest) or " Yom ha- 
Shadbat" (day of rest). As the Sabbath is the most important day of 
the week, the term " Shai)'bat " denotes also " week " — that is, the 
period from one Sabbath to the next; and a year of rest is also called 
'' Shahhat" (or '' Shabu'a''). Friday, as the forerunner of Shabbat, 
is called " 'Ereh Shahhat" (the eve of Sabbath). The term '"e^-eft " 
admits of two meanings: "evening" and "admixture" (Ex. 12:38); 
and " 'Erel) 8haJ)J)at " accordingly denotes the day on the evening of 
which Sabbath begins, or the day on which food is prepared for both 
the current and the following days, which latter is Sabbath. 

The idea of preparation is expressed by the Greek name irapaaKevq 
[paraskeue'\ , given by Josephus ("Ant." xvi. chap. 6, par. 2) to that 
day (compare Mark 15: 42; Luke 23: 54; Matt. 27: 62; John 19: 42). 
In Yer. Pesahim iv. 1 the day is called ''Yonrn da-'Aruhta" (day of 
preparation). Another term frequently employed in describing the 
day is the Aramaic " me'ale " (bringing in, that is, the Sabbath). Satur- 
day evening, i. e., the evening after the termination of SabbAth, is cor- 
respondingly called " Moza'e ShabJ)at " in Hebrew and ''Appuke Yoma " 
in Aramaic ( " leading the day out " ) . The name originally given to 
Saturday evening is also applied to denote the whole of " Sunday." — 
The Jewish Encyclopedia, Yol. Ill, art. " Calendar, The 'Week,'" p. 502. 

Calendar, Week, Adopted at Rome in the Time of HADRiAisr, 117- 
138, A. D. — Attention has recently been called, in connection with our 
subject, to a circumstance which is important, — the adoption by the 
Roman world of the Egyptian week almost contemporaneously with 
the founding of the Christian church. Dion Cassius speaks of that 
adoption as recent, and we are therefore warranted in conjecturing the 
time of Hadrian as about that wherein it must have established itself. — 
"A Dictionary of the Bible,'' William Smith, LL.. D., Vol. Ill, p. 1072. 
Boston: Little, Broton d Co.. 1863. 

Calendar, Week, Dion Cassius on. — Most of the city [Jerusalem], 
to be sure, he [Pompey] took without any trouble, as he was received 
by the party of Hyrcanus; but the temple itself, which the other party 
[that of Aristobulus] had occupied, he captured only with difficulty. 
For it was on high ground and was fortified by a wall of its own; and 
if they had continued defending it on all days alike, he could not have 
got possession of it. As it was, they made an exception of what are 
called the days of Saturn, and by doing no work at all on those days 
afforded the Romans an opportunity in this interval to batter down the 
wall. The latter, on learning of this superstitious awe of theirs, made 
no serious attempts the rest of the time, but on those days, when they 
came round in succession, assaulted most vigorously. Thus the de- 
fenders were captured on the day of Saturn, without making any de- 
fense, and all the wealth was plundered. The kingdom was given to 
Hyrcanus, and Aristobulus was carried away. 

This was the course of events at that time in Palestine; for this is 
the name that has been given from of old to the whole country extend- 



68 CALENDAR, WEEK 

ing from Phcenicia to Egypt along the inner sea. They have another 
name that they have acquired: the country has been named Judea, and 
the people themselves Jews. I do not know how this title came to be 
applied to them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although 
of alien race, who affect their customs. This class exists even among 
the Romans, and though often repressed, has increased to a very great 
extent, and has won its way to the right of freedom in its observances. 
They are distinguished from the rest of mankind in practically every 
detail of life, and especially by the fact that they do not honor any of 
the usual gods, but show extreme reverence for one particular Divinity. 
They never had any statue of him even in Jerusalem itself, but be- 
lieving him to be unnamable and invisible, they worship him in the 
most extravagant fashion on earth. They built to him a temple that is 
extremely large and beautiful, except in so far as it was open and 
roofless,! and likewise dedicate to him the day called the day of Saturn, 
on which, among many other most peculiar observances, they under 
take no serious occupation. 

Now as for him, who he is and why he has been so honored, and 
how they got their superstitious awe of him, accounts have been given 
by many, and moreover these matters have naught to doi with this his- 
tory. The custom, however, of referring the days to the seven stars 
called planets was instituted by the Egyptians, but is now found among 
all mankind, though its adoption has been comparatively recent; at 
any rate, the ancient Greeks never understood it, so far as I am aware. 
But since it is now quite the fashion with mankind generally, and even 
with the Romans themselves, and is to them already an ancestral tra- 
dition, I wish to write briefly of it, telling how and in what way it has 
been arranged. — " History of Rome,'" Dion Gassius, Vol. Ill, hook 37, pp. 
lBS-131. London: William Heineman, 1914. 

Calendar, Seven-day Period Introduced into Roman Chronology. — 
In the Roman chronological system of the Augustan age the week as 
a division of time was practically unknown, though the twelve calendar 
months existed as we have them now. In the course of the first and 
second century after Christ, the hebdomadal, or seven-day, period be- 
came universally familiar, though not immediately through Jewish or 
Christian influence. The arrangement seems to have been astrological 
in origin and to have come to Rome from Egypt. — The Catholic En- 
cyclopedia, Vol. Ill, art. " Calendar," p. 158. 

Calendar, Roman Period of Eight Days. — ■ The Romans were ac- 
customed to divide the year into nundince, periods of eight days; and in 
their marble fasti, or calendars, of which numerous specimens remain, 
they used the first eight letters of the alphabet to mark the days of 
which each period was composed. When the Oriental seven-day period, 
or week, was introduced, in the time of Augustus, the first seven letters 
of the alphabet were employed in the same way to indicate the days of 
this new division of time. In fact, fragmentary calendars on marble 
still survive in which both a cycle of eight letters — A to H — indicat- 
ing nundince, and a cycle of seven letters — A to G — indicating weeks, 
are used side by side (see "Corpus Inscriptionum Lfatinarum," 2d ed., 
I, 220. The same peculiarity occurs in the Philocalian Calendar of a. d. 
356, ibid., p. 256). This device was imitated by the Christians, and in 
their calendars the days of the year from 1 January to 31 December 
were marked with a continuous recurring cycle of seven letters: A, B, 



^ This statement would seem to rest upon a confusion of the court with the 
temple itself. — Eds, 



CALENDAR, MONTHS 



69 



C, D, E, F, G. A was always set against 1 January, B against 2 Janu- 
ary, C against 3 January, and so on. — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 
V, art. " Dominical Letter," p. 109. 

Calendar, Months, Jewish and Engolish. — 

N. B. — 'The civil months are six months later than the sacred 
months. 



Sacred 
Month 


Name 

of 
Month 


Corre- 
sponding 
English 
Month 



Festival of Month 


I 


Ahih, or 
Nisan 


April 


14th day. 
16th day. 


The Passover 
Firstfruits of barley har- 
vest presented 


II 


Zif 


May 


14th day. 


Second Passover, for 
those who could not 
keep the first 


III 

IV 
V 


Sivan 

Thammuz 
Ab 


June 

July 
August 


6th day. 


Pentecost, or Feast of 
Weeks 

Firstfruits of wheat 
harvest, and firstfruits 
of all the ground 


VI 


Elul 


September 






VII 


Tisri, or 
Ethanim 


October 


1st day. 
10th day. 
15th day. 


Feast of Trumpets 
Day of Atonement 
Feast of Tabernacles 
Firstfruits of wine and 


VIII 


Bui 


November 




oil 


IX 


Chisleu 


December 


25th day. 


Feast of Dedication 


X 


Tebeth 


January 






XI 


Shebat 


February 






XII 


Adar 


March 


14th and 15th days. Feast of Purim 



— " The Compan/ion mile," part I, •' The Pentateuch," Appendix, p. 74. 
London: Oxford University Press. 

Calendar, The Festive. — The symbolical character which is to be 
traced in all the institutions of the Old Testament, appears also in 
the arrangement of its festive calendar. Whatever classification of 
the festivals may be proposed, one general characteristic pervades the 
whole. 

Unquestionably, the number seven marks in Scripture the sacred 
measurement of time. The Sabbath is the seventh of days; seven 
weeks after the commencement of the ecclesiastical year is the Feast 
of Pentecost; the seventh month is more sacred than the rest, its " first- 
born," or New Moon, being not only devoted to the Lord like those of 
the other months, but specially celebrated as the Feast of Trumpets, 
while three other festivals occur within its course, — the Day of Atone- 
ment, the Feast of Tabernacles, and its octave. Similarly, each seventh 
year is sabbatical, and after seven times seven years comes that of 



70 CALENDAR, NEW YEAR 

jubilee. Nor is this all. Seven days in the year may be designated as 
the most festive, since in them alone " no servile work " was to be 
done, while on the so-called minor festivals (Moed Katon), that is, on 
the days following the first of the Passover week and of that of Taber- 
nacles, the diminution of festive observances and of restrictions on labor 
marks their less sacred character. — " The Temple, Its Ministry and 
Services, as They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ," Rev. Dr. Eder- 
sheim, pp. 165, 166. Boston: Ira Bradley d Co., copyright 1881. 

Calendar, New Year. — No definite and fast assertion is made in 
the Old Testament of the month with which the New Year began. 
While the autumn festival is designated as " the end of the year " (Ex. 
23: 16), the "return of the year" is marked as "the time when kings 
go forth to battle." Probably the autumn marks simply the end of the 
season, the beginning of which is the sowing of the crops, coincident with 
the time when the operations of war can be carried on; while the 
season of the winter rains marked a pause when the staple business 
life was interrupted, [p. 473] . . . 

The reckoning of the regnal years of the kings is based upon the 
year which began in the spring, and is parallel to the Babylonian 
method in which this prevailed. . . . 

After the exile the Babylonian names for the months gradually 
came into use, this being determined by Persian control of Hither 
Asia and the official use by the Persians of these names. In Zechariah 
1:7; 7:1, the names of the months may be interpolations; but in the 
books of Nehemiah and Ezra the names are used as customary, while 
in Esther the numbers are added for the sake of clearness. The Chron- 
icler adheres to the usage in the law. The names used by the Jews are 
as follows: Nisan, Assyr. Nisanu (Neh. 2: 1, etc.); lyyar, Assyr. Airu 
(Targum on 2 Chron. 30: 2); Siwan, Assyr. Simanu (Esther 8: 9); 
Tammuz, Assyr. Duzu (Targum Jerusalem, Gen. 8: 5); Al), Assyr. Abu 
(Targum Jerusalem, Num. 20: 29, etc.); Elul, Assyr. Ululu (Neh. 6: 
15); Tishri, Assyr. Tishritu (Targum Jerusalem, Lev. 23:24); Mar- 
heshwan, Assyr. Arah-shamnu (Targum Jerusalem, Deut. 11: 14); Kish- 
lew, Assyr, Eislimu (Neh. 1: 1, etc.); Teheth, Assyr. Tedetu (Esther 2: 
16); Shebat, Assyr. Shadatu (Zech. 1: 7); Adar, Assyr. Adam (Esther 
3 : 7 etc. ) . The beginning of the month was doubtless in both early and 
later times determined by actual observation of the new moon. The 
intercalation of a month was in late times determined by the San- 
hedrin, but whether that month was called Adar or (with the Baby- 
lonians) Elul is not determined. Reckoning by cycles belongs to times 
in the Christian era. 

From Nehemiah 2: 1 compared with Nehemiah 1: 1 it appears that 
the regnal years of Persian kings were reckoned from the first of 
Tishri. — The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 
Yol. XII, art. " Year, The Hebrew," pp. 473, 474. 

Calendar, Jewish and Mohammedan. — In the construction of the 
Jewish calendar numerous details require attention. The calendar is 
dated from the creation, which is considered to have taken place 3,760 
years and three months before the commencement of the Christian era. 
The year is luni-solar, and, according as it is ordinary or embolismic, 
consists of twelve or thirteen lunar months, each of which has twenty- 
nine or thirty days. Thus the duration of the ordinary year is 354 days, 
and that of the embolismic is 384 days. In either case, it is sometimes 
made a day more, and sometimes a day less, in order that certain 
festivals may fall on proper days of the week for their due observ 
ance. [p. 1000] . . , 



CAliJENDAR, NAMES OP DAYS 71 

The Mohammedan era, or era of the Hegira, used in Turkey, Persia, 
Arabia, etc., is dated from the first day of the month preceding the 
flight of Mahomet from Mecca to Medina, i. e., Thursday, the 15th of 
July, A. D. 622, and it commenced on the day following. The years of 
the Hegira are purely lunar, and always consist of twelve lunar months, 
commencing with the approximate new moon, without any intercalation 
to keep them to the same season with respect to the sun, so that they 
retrograde through all the seasons in about thirty-two and one-half 
years. They are also partitioned into cycles of thirty years, nineteen of 
which are common years of 354 days each, and the other eleven are inter- 
calary years having an additional day appended to the last month. — 
The Encyclopedia Britannioa, Vol. IV, art " Calendar," pp. 1000, 1001. 

Calendar, Planetary Names of Days fbom Egypt. — The weekly 
calendar of seven days was unknown to the early Greeks. Their week 
consisted of ten days. The early Romans divided the year into months 
and the months into three unequal and varying parts, — the Kalends, of 
thirteen to fifteen days; the Ides, of seven to nine days; and the Nones, 
of nine days. The Egyptians, like the Assyrians and Babylonians, 
were advanced astronomers, and in very remote time, but how early 
is not known, had their weeks of seven days each. How they came to 
have weeks of seven days like the Akkadians, the Assyrians, and the 
Babylonians, is not known. Nor is it known why they also called 
their days for the sun, the moon, and five of the planets. This Egyptian 
division of time was introduced into Rome and supplanted the Roman 
calendar, but the time of the innovation is not certainly known, some 
authorities placing it in the second and others in the fourth century 
of the Christian era. — The 'New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Reli- 
gious Knowledge, Vol. XI, art. " Sunday," p. 147. 

Canaan. — Canaan signifies " the lowlands," and was primarily 
the name of the coast on which the great cities of Phoenicia were built. 
As, however, the inland parts of the country were inhabited by a kin- 
dred, population, the name came to be extended to designate the whole 
of Palestine, just as Palestine itself meant originally only the small 
territory of the Philistines. In Isaiah's prophecy upon Tyre (23: 11) 
the word is used in its primitive sense, though here again the Author- 
ized Version has misled the English reader by mistranslating " the 
merchant city " instead of " Canaan." Sidon, " the fishers' town," was 
the oldest of the Canaanite or Phoenician cities; like Tyre, it was di- 
vided into two quarters, known respectively as Greater and Lesser Si- 
don. Heth or the Hethites adjoined the Phoenicians on the north. . . . 
The Amorite was the inhabitant of the mountains of Palestine, in con- 
trast to the Canaanite, or lowlander, and the name is met with on 
the Egyptian monuments. The towns of Arka and Simirra (or Zemar) 
are both mentioned by Tiglath-Pileser II, while the city of Arvad or 
Arados (now Ruad) is repeatedly named in the Assyrian inscriptions. 
So also is Hamath (now Hamah), which was conquered by Sargon, and 
made by him the seat of an Assyrian governor. — " Fresh Light from the 
Ancient Monuments," A. H. Sayce, M. A., p. 40. London: The Religious 
Tract Society, 1890. 

Canon, Definition of. — The term " canon " properly signifies a 
measuring reed or rule; and is sometimes applied to the tongue of a 
balance, which indicates by its position whether the scales are in equi- 
librium. Hence, canonical books are those which form the divine rule, 
by which men ascertain whether they are walking orderly in the 



72 CANON, OI.D TESTAMENT 

straight path of God's law, and by which they examine themselves, 
whether they are in the faith, and weigh their lives, as it were, in the 
balance of the sanctuary. In a word, the canon of Scripture is the 
divinely inspired code of belief and practice. — " On the Inspiration of 
Holy Scripture," Ghr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 5, 6. London: Francis 
d John Rivington, 1851. 

Canon, Old Testament, How Anciently Classified. — The Old Tes- 
tament, according to our Bibles, comprises thirty-nine books. . . . But, 
among the ancient Jews, they formed only twenty-two books, according 
to the letters of their alphabet, which were twenty-two in number; reck- 
oning Judges and Ruth, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and his Lamenta- 
tions, and the twelve minor prophets (so called from the comparative 
brevity of their compositions), respectively as one book. — "An Intro- 
duction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures" 
Thomas Hartwell Home, B. D., Vol. I, p. 39, London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

Canon, Old Testament, How Preseeved and Authenticated. — Our 
present concern is with the Old Testament; and I would now proceed to 
show that its books, as soon as they were written, were delivered by 
Almighty God to the keeping of his own people, the Jews; that by them 
they were received as inspired, and preserved pure and entire till the 
coming of Christ; that they; and they alone, were acknowledged by him 
as the sincere word of God; that, being so authenticated by Christ, they 
passed into the hands of the Christian church; and have been preserved 
unadulterated and unmutilated, and conveyed by an uninterrupted suc- 
cession even to ourselves at this day. — " On the Inspiration of Holy 
Scripture" Ghr. Wordsworth, D. D,, p. 29. London: Francis & John 
Rivington, 1851. 

Canon, Old Testament, Christ's Relation to. — Our blessed Lord 
was a constant attendant at the worship of the synagogue, and he took 
part in the public reading and exposition of the sacred books of the 
Jews: thus he gave a practical testimony and a personal sanction to 
the tenets of the Jews concerning those books. He, the Son of God, 
received as divinely inspired Scripture what the Jews received and 
delivered to him as such. He affirmed those books to be written by the 
Holy Ghost; and claimed to be received as the Messiah on the author- 
ity of their prophecies. He frequently called those books, " The Scrip- 
tures; " he commanded the Jews to search their Scriptures; he said, 
" It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law 
to fail;" and again, "Verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth 
pass, one jot or one tittle [that is, one yod, the smallest letter, and one 
point of a letter] shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ful- 
filled; " and again, "The Scripture cannot be broken." 

He declared that the Sadducees erred by not understanding the 
Scriptures. "They have Moses and the prophets: let them hear them." 
He defined the prophetical age between the limits of Abel and Zacha- 
rias. In his walk with the two disciples to Emmaus, after his resur- 
rection, " beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto 
them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." He said to 
his apostles, " These are the words which I spake unto you while I 
was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written 
in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning 
me." So spake the Lord of life. And, therefore, the writings of Moses 
and all the prophets, and the Psalms, — that is, all the books received 
by the Jews under these names, — were " all the Scriptures " to Christ. 



CANON, OLD TESTAMENT 73 

It is therefore clear that our blessed Lord joined with the Jews in 
receiving what they received as Scripture. And therefore he joined 
with them also in not receiving what they did not receive as such. He 
therefore did not receive the Apocrypha as inspired. — " On the Inspira- 
tion of Holy Scripture," Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 61, 52. London: 
Francis and John Rivington, 1851. 

Canon, Roman Catholic View of Manner of Determining. — Tra- 
dition we have hitherto described as the consciousness of the church, 
as the living word of faith, according to which the Scriptures are to 
be interpreted and to be understood. The doctrine of tradition con- 
tains, in this sense, nothing else than the doctrine of Scripture; both, 
as to their contents, are one and the same. But, moreover, it is asserted 
by the Catholic Church that many things have been delivered to her 
by the apostles, which Holy Writ either doth not at all comprise, or 
at most, but alludes to. This assertion of the church is of the greatest 
moment, and partially indeed, includes the foundations of the whole 
system. Among these oral traditions must be included the doctrine of 
the canonicity and the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures; for in no 
part of the Bible do we find the books belonging to it designated; and 
were such a catalogue contained in it, its authority must first be made 
matter of inquiry. In like manner, the testimony as to the inspiration 
of the Biblical writings is obtained only through the church. It is 
from this point we first discern, in all its magnitude, the vast impor- 
tance of the doctrine of church authority, and can form a notion of the 
infinite multitude of things involved in that doctrine. — " Symbolism,'" 
John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C), 5th edition, pp. 29S, 293. London: 
Thomas Baker, 1906. 

Note. — This book was first printed in 1832. — Eds. 

Canon, Old Testament, Additions to, by the Church of Rome. — 
The Church of Rome at the Council of Trent placed other books [the 
Apocrypha] on an equal footing with those thus delivered to the church 
of the Jews by God, and which alone were treated as divine by Christ 
and his apostles; and the Church of Rome anathematized, and still 
anathematizes, all who do not and cannot receive these other books as 
of equal authority with those whose inspiration is guaranteed by Christ. 
What is this but with profane irreverence to dictate to the Supreme 
Being himself? Must we not say to you, "Apud vos de humano arbi- 
tratu Deus pensitatur; nisi homini Deus placuerit, Deus non eritf " 
[With you is God considered according to human judgment; unless God 
be acceptable to man, will he not be God?] What is it but to elevate 
human authors into divine, and, after the manner of ancient Rome, as 
St. Chrysostom says, x^i-poroveiv deoiis Icheirotonein theous (choose gods 
by vote — hand raising)] to create gods by a show of hands? — "Letters 
to M. Gondon," Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 120, 121. London: Francis 
d John Rivington, 1848. 

Canon, Old Testament, The Roman Catholic. — The most explicit 
definition of the Catholic canon is that given by the Council of Trent, 
Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows: 
"The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deu- 
teronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Para- 
lipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehe- 
mias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one 
hundred and fifty psalms). Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Can- 
ticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, 
Daniel, the twelve minor prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, 
Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Maitlachias) , 



74 CANON, MURATORIAN FRAGMENT 

two books of Machabees, the first and second." The order of books 
copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is 
that of the Septuagint. — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. Ill, art. 
" Canon,'' p. 270. 

Canon, Old Testament, According to Josephus. — We have not a 
multitude of books among us, disagreeing and contradicting one another, 
as the Greeks have, but are confined to twenty-two, that we are bound 
to believe, and those twenty-two books comprise the history of the 
world from the beginning to this day. Five of them treat of the crea- 
tion of the world, and the generation of mankind, and so to the death 
of Moses, in a series of little less than three thousand years. 

From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, the son ot 
Xerxes, and king of Persia, every one of our prophets wrote the history 
of the times in which he lived, comprehending the whole in thirteen 
books; the other four books containing divine poems and moral pre- 
cepts. There has, indeed, been a continuation of our history from 
Artaxerxes to this instant; but it is not esteemed, in point of authen- 
ticity, comparable to that of our forefathers, as there has not been an 
exact succession of prophets since that time. The former writings are 
the objects of our implicit belief; for, during many ages of the world, 
no attempt has been made either to add to or diminish from them, or 
even so much as to transform or disguise them. As we hold these 
writings divine, we call them so; and are trained, from earliest in- 
fancy, to meditate upon, observe, and maintain them as such: nay, we 
are enjoined rather to suffer death than give them up. — " The 'Wor'ks 
of Flavins Josephus,'' Whiston's translation, " In Answer to Apion," 
book 1, par. 11. 

In this enumeration of Josephus, it will be seen that the Jewish 
sacred books — thirty-nine in our Bible — are reckoned as twenty-two 
(after the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet), viz., five of the 
law, thirteen of the prophets, and four remaining books. These last 
are Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. The middle class 
includes all the historical and prophetical books, likewise Job, and the 
reduction in the number from thirty to thirteen is explained by Judges- 
Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehe- 
miah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, and the twelve minor prophets, each 
being counted as one book. In his twenty-two books, therefore, Josephus 
includes all those in the present Hebrew canon, and none besides — not 
the books known as the Apocrypha, though he was acquainted with and 
used some of these. — The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 
edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. "Bible, The," p. 461. 

Canon, Mueatoeian Feagment. — The document thus designated 
is a very ancient list of sacred writings of the New Testament, first 
published in, 1740 by Muratori (Ant. Ital. Med. Aev. iii. 851). He had 
found it in a seventh or eighth century manuscript in the Ambrosian 
Library at Milan, of which he had formerly been librarian. . . . 
This is, as far as we know, the earliest attempt to make an enumera- 
tion of the New Testament writings recognized by the church. The 
document is approximately dated by means of a reference in it to the 
episcopate of Pius at Rome, which it speaks of as " nuperrime tennpori- 
bus nostris [very lately, in our times]." The latest date assigned for the 
death of Pius is a. d. 157, and it is contended that no one would speak of 
an event as having occurred " very lately and in his own time," if it was 
then more than twenty years ago. So we get about a. d. 180 as the latest 
admissible date for this document, [p, 1000] . . . 



CANON, NEW TESTAMENT 75 

The first line of the fragment is evidently the conclusion of its 
notice of St. Mark's Gospel; for it goes, on to speak of St. Luke's as in 
the third place, St. John's as in the fourth. It is clear that a notice of 
St. Matthew's Gospel and of St. Mark's must have come before; but we 
have no means of testing the conjecture that the document had previ- 
ously given a list of Old Testament books. The document would appear 
to have undertaken to throw light on the choice of topics in the Gos- 
pels and on the point where each began (compare Irenaeus, iii. 11). 
It is stated that St. Luke (and apparently St. Mark also) had not 
seen our Lord in the flesh, and had based his narrative on such infor- 
mation as he could obtain, beginning from the birth of John. . . . 
The document goes on to say that the variety in the Gospels makes no 
difference to the faith of believers, since by one and the same sovereign 
Spirit the same fundamental doctrines are fully taught in all concern- 
ing our Lord's birth, life, passion, resurrection, and future coming. 
At the date of this document, therefore, belief was fully established not 
only in the pre-eminence of four Gospels, but in their divine inspiration. 

Next comes a notice of the Acts of the Apostles, in which St. Luke's 
choice of topics is accounted for by his having only designed to record 
what fell under his own notice, and having therefore left unmentioned 
the martyrdom of Peter and the journey of Paul to Spain. 

Thirteen epistles of St. Paul are then mentioned: (a) Epistles to 
churches, in the following order: 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, 
Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans. 
It is observed that though Paul, for their correction, wrote twice to the 
Corinthians and the Thessalonians, he only addressed seven churches 
by name, in this following the example of " his predecessor," St. John, 
who, in writing to seven churches, showed that he was addressing the 
universal church, (b) Epistles to individuals: Philemon, Titus, and 
two to Timothy, written from personal affection, but hallowed by the 
honor of the catholic church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline. 
— "A Dictionary of Christian Biography," Smith and Wace, Vol III, 
art. '' Muratorian Fragment," pp. 1000, 1001. London: John Murray, 
1882. 

Canon, New Testament, When Determined. — What now are the 
facts concerning the books of the New Testament as they emerge to his- 
torical recognition about the close of the second and the beginning of 
the third century? 

a. A translation of the writings upon which the faith of the church 
was founded, was made into the Syriac language some time during the 
second century, and was in authoritative circulation in the valley of 
the Euphrates. This translation contains all of our present New 
Testament except Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation, 
and no other books. 

h. About the same time translations appear in the Latin, and are 
in circulation in Northern Africa and Italy. A catalogue of New Testa- 
ment books known as the Muratorian Canon, prepared about the year 
170, has been preserved, and well represents the limits assigned to the 
Sacred Writings by the churches in Northern Africa and Italy. This 
catalogue includes the four Gospels, Acts, the thirteen epistles of 
Paul, 1 and 2 John, Jude, and Revelation. Combining these two cata- 
logues, we have distinct documentary evidence of the canonical rec- 
ognition by the churches of the second century of every book of the 
New Testament except 2 Peter. — " The Divine Authority of the Bitle," 
G. Frederick Wright, pp. 73, 74. Boston: Congregational Sunday-School 
and Publishing Society, copyright 1884. 



7ft CANON, NEW TESTAMENT 

Canon, New Testament, the Second Epistle oe Peter. — The 
amount of direct evidence to substantiate the canonical authority of 
this epistle is less than that of any other portion of Scripture. There 
is no distinct evidence of its having " been referred to by any author 
earlier than Origen " (about 220); though Clement of Alexandria is 
reported by the church historians Eusebius and Photius to have writ- 
ten a " commentary upon all the disputed epistles, in which this was 
certainly included." In the fourth century Didymus, a celebrated writer 
of Alexandria, refers frequently to the epistle. "We may safely adopt 
the words of Canon Cook concerning it: " The historical evidence is 
certainly inconclusive, but not such as to require or to warrant the 
rejection of the epistle. The silence of the Fathers is accounted for 
more easily than its admission into the canon after the question as to 
its genuineness had been raised. It is not conceivable that it should 
have been received without positive attestation from the churches to 
which it was first addressed." — " The Divine Authority of the Bible" 
G. Frederick Wright, p. 78. Boston: Congregational Sundays-School 
and Publishing Society, copyright 1884. 

Canon, Formation of New Testament. — Modern advocates of infi- 
delity, with their accustomed disregard of truth, have asserted that the 
Scriptures of the New Testament were never accounted canonical until 
the meeting of the Council of Laodicea, a. d. 364, The simple fact is, 
that the canons of this council are the earliest extant, which give a 
formal catalogue of the books of the New Testament. There is, indeed, 
every reason to believe that the bishops who were present at Laodicea 
did not mean to settle the canon, but simply to mention those books 
which were to be publicly read. Another reason why the canonical 
books were not mentioned before the Council of Laodicea, is presented 
in the persecutions, to which the professors of Christianity were con- 
stantly exposed, and in the want of a national establishment of Chris- 
tianity for several centuries, which prevented any general councils of 
Christians for the purpose of settling their canon of Scripture. But 
though the number of the books thus received as sacred and canonical 
was not in the first instance determined by the authority of councils, 
we are not left in uncertainty concerning their genuineness and authen- 
ticity, for which we have infinitely more decisive and satisfactory evi- 
dence than we have for the productions of any ancient classic authors, 
concerning whose genuineness and authenticity no doubt was ever 
entertained. 

We receive the books of the New Testament as the genuine works 
of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude, for the 
same reason that we receive the writings of Xenophon, of Polybius, of 
Caesar, Tacitus, and Quintus Curtius; namely, because we have the 
uninterrupted testimony of ages to their genuineness, and we have no 
reason to suspect imposition. — " An Introduction to the Critical Study 
and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures," Thomas Hartwell Home, B. D., 
Vol. I, pp. 64, 65. London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

Canon, Authority of Books Not Established by. — ^The gathering 
of all the separate books is called canonization, and as some one has 
truly said, " Canonization created a book, not a revelation." The col- 
lection into a volume was inevitable, especially in view of the example 
of the Old Testament, but it must never be forgotten that the gathering 
together into one volume did not for the first time constitute the books 
authoritative. The heart of this whole question has been well put in 
words that deserve special emphasis and careful consideration: "The 
New Testament is not an authorized collection of hooks, hut a collection 
of authorized hooks." The authority lies in the books, not in the collec- 



CANON, NEW TESTAMENT 77 

tion. For this reason, when heretics collected their books, the church 
naturally bore testimony to what it believed to be the inspired and 
authoritative Scripture. — From an Addreiss by W. H. Griffith Thomas, 
D. D., printed in " God Hath Spoken,'' pp. 102, 103, Philadelphia: Bible 
Conference Committee, copyright 1919. 

Canon, Baely Recognition of the Gospels. — There can be no 
doubt that by the close of the first century and the early part of the 
second, opinion was practically unanimous in recognition of the au- 
thority of the four Gospels of the canonical Scriptures. Irenaeus, bishop 
of Lyons (180 a. d.), recognizes four, and only four Gospels, as " pillars " 
of the church. The Harmonies of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (IBS- 
ISO A, D.), and of Tatian, and the Apology of Justin Martyr carry back 
the tradition to a much earlier period of the century, and, as Liddon 
proves at considerable length (Bampton Lectures, 2d ed., 210-219), "it 
is scarcely too much to assert that every decade of the second century 
furnishes its share of proof that the four Gospels as a whole, and St. 
John's in particular, were to the church of that age what they are to 
the church of the present." — The International Standard Bible En- 
cyclopedia, edited by Jam^es Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. ''Apocryphal 
Gospels," p. 195. 

Canon, New Testament According to Eusebius. — This appears 
also to be the proper place to give a summary statement of the books 
of the New Testament already mentioned. And here, among the first, 
must be placed the holy quaternion of the Gospels; these are followed 
by "The Book of the Acts of the Apostles;" after this must be men- 
tioned the epistles of Paul, which are followed by the acknowledged 
first epistle of John, as also the first of Peter, to be admitted in like 
manner. After these, are to be placed, if proper, the Revelation of 
John, concerning which we shall offer the different opinions in due 
time. These, then, are acknowledged as genuine. 

Among the disputed books, although they are well known and 
approved by many, is reputed, that called the epistle of James and 
Jude. Also the " Second Epistle of Peter," and those called " The 
Second and Third of John," whether they are of the evangelist or of 
some other of the same name. Among the spurious must be numbered 
both the books called " The Acts of Paul," and that called " Pastor," 
and " The Revelation of Peter." Besides these, the books called " The 
Epistle of Barnabas," and what are called " The Institutions of the 
Apostles." Moreover, as I said before, if it should appear right, " The 
Revelation of John," which some, as before said, reject, but others 
rank among the genuine. — ''An Ecclesiastical History,'' Eusebius, trans- 
lated by Rev. G. F. Cruse, D. D., p. 128. London: Samuel Bagster & 
Sons, 1847. 

Canon, Not Determined by Any Council. — I need not tell you that 
the Council of Nicaea did not meddle with the subject of the canon, and 
so we need not trouble ourselves to discuss the proofs that the mem- 
bers of that venerable synod were frail and fallible men like ourselves. 
The fact is, that, as I have already told you, authority did not meddle 
with the question of the canon until that question had pretty well 
settled itself; and, instead of this abstention weakening the authority 
of our sacred books, the result has been that the great majority have 
far higher authority than if their claims rested on the decision of 
any council, however venerable. They rest on the spontaneous consent 
of the whole Christian world, churches the most remote agreeing 
independently to do honor to the same books. — "A Historical Intro- 
duction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament," George 
Salmon, D. D., p. 227. London: John Murray, 1885. 



78 CANON, NEW TESTAMENT 

Canon, New Testament, When Established. — The voice of the 
universal church, ever unanimous, from apostolic times, on the first 
canon,i and unanimous, from the date of the Council of Nice, on the 
second, finally became, in the course of the fourth century, unanimous 
on the second-first 2 likewise. The temporary and late hesitations of the 
churches of the West regarding the epistle to the Hebrews had already 
almost entirely disappeared; and the temporary and late hesitations of 
the churches of the East regarding the Apocalypse, had, from the early 
part of the fourth century, disappeared likewise. The canon was thus, 
universally and forever, recognized in all the churches of Christendom. 
— " The Canon of the Holy Scriptures" L. Gaussen, D. D., p. 82. Lon- 
don: James Nisbet & Co., 1862. 

Many persons speak of the list of Sacred Scriptures as if it had 
furnished nothing but uncertainty to Christians for three centuries, and 
as if the divine authority of the books of the New Testament had never 
been distinctly recognized till the end of the fourth. It is, however, 
on the contrary, an incontestable fact, that the first canon 1 was, at no 
time, anywhere an object of any uncertainty to the churches of God, 
and that all the writings of which it consists, that is, eight ninths of 
the New Testament, were, from the moment of their appearance, and 
through all succeeding ages have been, universally recognized by all 
the churches of Christendom. — Id., p. 84. 

Canon, New Testament, How Made. — The books of the New Tes- 
tament were given by the Holy Spirit into the hands of the church, 
they were forthwith publicly read : this was their canonization. 

Let us apply the essayist's principle to profane authors. The works 
of Horace and Martial were not published at once, by their respective 
authors, but at intervals of several years. Now that they are collected 
together in one volume, we have what may be called a Canon of Horace 
and Martial. But how was this formed? Did a junta of grammarians 
sit down at a table and decide what books were to be received as 
making it? No: the Canon of Horace and Martial made itself, by the 
general reception of their books, as the works of their respective au- 
thors, as soon as they were written. So, much more the canon of the 
New Testament made itself by the public usage of the church in all 
parts of the world. — " Letters to M. Gondon," Ghr. Wordsworth, D. D., 
p. 91. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. 

Canon, New Testament, When Commenced and Completed.— The 
whole canon of the Scriptui*es of the New Testament was commenced 
and completed during the latter half of the first century. . . . 

The primitive church . . . saw her New Testament canon forming 
in her hand, as a nosegay is gradually formed in the hand of a lady 
walking through plots of fiowers with the proprietor of the garden by 
her side. As she advances, the latter presents to her fiower after flower, 
till she finds herself in possession of an entire bunch. And, just as the 
nosegay attracts admiring attention before it is filled up, and as soon as 
the few first flowers have been put together, so the New Testament 



1 By this term the author means, as expressed in his own words, " the four 
Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the first thirteen epistles of Paul, the first 
epistle of Peter, and the first epistle of John." — Page U. "This first canon, 
consisting of books never controverted, forms, by itself, eight ninths of the New 
Testament, if we reckon by the number of verses." — Page 18. Editoes. 

2 By the second-first canon. Dr. Gaussen means, as expressed by himself, 
" the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse," and this for the reason that 
" after being generally received, they were subsequently controverted by certain 
churches for some time ; the one book chiefly in the West, the other chiefly in 
the East." — Page 19. Editors. 



CANON, NEW TESTAMENT 79 

canon began to exist for the Christian church from the moment the ear- 
liest portions of inspired Scriptures had been put into her hands, — " The 
Canon of the Holy Scriptures/! L. Guussen, D. D., pp. 14, 15. London: 
James Nisbet & Co., 1862. 

Canon, New Testament, Not Settled by Councils. — ^^We allow 
that no catalogue of the books of the New Testament is found in the 
extant decrees of any council of the church more ancient than those of 
Laodicea and Carthage, toward the close of the fourth century. But, 
waiving the argument that the decrees of many earlier councils have 
been lost, and that such catalogues may have existed in them, we affirm, 
and shall proceed to prove, that the books of the New Testament had 
been received as inspired not only long before that age, but in and 
from the time in which they were written; and that those two councils, 
in publishing these lists, did not imagine that they were making, or 
could make, any book to be canonical which was not canonical before. 
They did not intend to enact anything new, but only to declare what 
was old; just as the Church of England, in the sixteenth century, when 
she published a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament in her 
Sixth Article, did not pretend to give any new authority to those books, 
but only affirmed what the church had believed concerning them from 
the beginning. — " On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture'^ Chr. Words- 
worth, D. D., pp. 134, 135. London: Francis d John Rivington, 1851. 

Not one author, either of the fourth, or fifth, or sixth century, ap- 
peals, on the subject of the canon, to the decisions of any council. Thus, 
when Cyril, patriarch of Jerusalem, who was born (it is believed) 
twenty years after Athanasius, gives us his catalogue of inspired books, 
he refers to no council, and only appeals to " the apostles, and the 
ancient bishops who presided over the churches, and transmitted to us 
those books as inspired." 

Likewise, when Augustin, about the end of the same century, or 
rather the beginning of the fifth, wrote an answer to certain persons 
who had inquired of him " which books were truly canonical," he sim- 
ply referred to the testimony of the various churches of Christendom, 
and not to any council whatever. 

Likewise, when Rufinus, a presbyter of Aquileia, about the year 
340, gives his catalogue (also identical with ours), he simply pro- 
fesses to present " the tradition of their ancestors, who had transmitted 
these books to the churches of Christ, as divinely inspired," and he 
declares that he gives it just as he had 'Copied it from the records of 
the Fathers. 

Lastly, when Cassiodorus, a Roman consul in the sixth century, 
gives us three catalogues of the books of the New Testament (one from 
Jerome, another from Augustin, and another from an ancient version), 
he, too, makes no reference to any decree or to any council. 
*■ Let it, then, be no longer said that the authority of councils fixed 
the canon of Scripture. It was, indeed, fixed; but the authority of 
councils had nothing to do with it. It was the will of God that Chris- 
tians individually, and Christian congregations, enlightened by the tes- 
timony of successive generations of believers, should form their opin- 
ions on the subject of the canon with entire liberty of judgment, that 
the authenticity of the sacred books might be rendered more manifest. 
— " The Canon of the Holy Scriptures," L. Gaussen. D. D., pp. 88, 89. 
London: James Nishet & Co., 1862. 

Canon, New Testament, Relation of Church to. — It is said that 
the church is more ancient than Scripture; that there was a church of 
God on earth before the Old Testament; and that the Christian church 



8Q CANON, NEW TESTAMENT 

existed before any of the New Testament was written; and therefore, 
it is said, Scripture depends upon the church. But this proceeds on 
the false assumption that the authority, of Scripture is grounded on 
the fact of its being written; whereas it is wholly derived from its 
being the word of God. Scripture is God's word written; the writing 
of the word is no necessary condition of its existence, though it is a 
quality very useful for the preservation and diffusion of the word. [pp. 
16, 17] . . . 

The church, then, is a divinely instituted society of believers, who 
are born by water and the word; the church is cleansed and sanctified 
by the word, for " Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, 
that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by 
the word." She therefore owes all her being and her beauty to the 
word; and she is, therefore, posterior to the word, though not to the 
writing of the word. This word proceeds from Christ, the Alpha and 
Omega of all God's revelations; and by God's will, for our salvation, it 
was consigned to writing, and it has been committed by God to the 
custody of the church, who is commanded to preach the same; but it is 
as preposterous to affirm that it owes its authority to the church, as it 
would be to say that a royal writ depends for its validity on the Keeper 
of the Great Seal; or that the power of the monarch is derived from the 
herald who proclaims his accession to the throne. 

It is to be observed, also, that, by resolving our belief in the canon 
of Scripture into the tradition of the church, as the sufficient and final 
cause of our assent to the same, we should, in fact, be undermining the 
foundations of the church herself, and leave ourselves without any 
ground for belief in her teaching; for this belief rests on the word of 
God. But if the word of God is to depend entirely for its authority 
on the witness of the church, then we shall have, in fine, the church 
bearing testimony to herself, — a kind of evidence which no one can be 
bound to receive. And this objection is much stronger against the 
Romish theory, when we remember that it would require us to resolve 
our faith in the canon of Scripture, not into the tradition of the prim- 
itive universal church, but into that of the existing Roman branch of 
it, which is at variance with that of the catholic church; so that, in 
fact, it would leave us without any sure ground for belief, either in 
Scripture or the church. — " On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture,*' Ghr. 
Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 16-19. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1851. 

Canon, New Testament, Accepted at Nice. — The discussions which 
took place at Nice were in accordance with the principle thus laid 
down, if the history of Gelasius be trustworthy. Scripture was the 
source from which the champions and assailants of the orthodox faith 
derived their premises; and among other books, the epistle to the 
Hebrews was quoted as written by St. Paul, and the catholic epistles 
were recognized as a definite collection. But neither in this nor in the 
following councils were the Scriptures themselves ever the subjects of 
discussion. They underlie all controversy, as a sure foundation, known 
and immovable. — " A General Survey of the History of the Canon of 
the New Testament'' Brooke Foss Westcott, M. A., p. 495. CamMidge: 
Macmillan & Co., 1855. 

Canon, New Testament, How Guaranteed. — Thus we perceive 
that the reception of the New Testament, by the primitive church, as 
the unerring word of God, is guaranteed by irrefragable proofs. It is 
evinced by catalogues; it is proclaimed by councils; it is shown by the 
fury of persecutors, and by the fraud of heretics; by the courage of 
martyrs, and by the zeal of the church. It is declared by a continued 



CANON LAW 81 

succession of writers, from the age of the apostles to our own. — " On 
the Inspiration of Holy Scripture," Ghr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 153. 
London: Francis & John Rivington, 1851. 

Canon, New Testament, fbom Apostolic Times. — We, therefore, 
proceed to observe that we possess an uninterrupted series of writings 
from the apostolic times to the present day; and that these contain 
quotations from the books of the New Testament; and that we have 
commentaries upon it, reaching downward to us, in unbroken succession, 
from the third and fourth centuries; and that many of these commen- 
taries exhibit the text of these books; and that we have hundreds of 
ancient manuscripts of these books from all parts of the world; that we 
have ancient versions of them in numerous languages; and that these 
various and independent witnesses coincide with each other, and concur 
in testifying the fact that the Scriptures of the New Testament existed 
in primitive times as they exist now, and have been transmitted, pure 
and entire, from the hands of the apostles to our own. — Id., pp. 141, 142. 

Canon, Roman Catholic View of. — Pope Gregory VII, in the 
eleventh century, said very boldly, " Not a single book or chapter of 
Scripture shall be held canonical without the Pope's authority." — 
*' Letters to M. Gondon," Ghr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 108. London:: 
Francis & John Rivington, 1848. 

Canon Law (Corpus Juris). — Various collections of church law 
we're made from an early period in her history, but those which are 
contained in the Corpus Juris are the most celebrated. The Corpus 
Juris is usually divided into two volumes. The first contains the 
Decretum of Gratian, a Benedictine monk, who composed his work 
about the middle of the twelfth century. It is a private collection, and 
so the documents of which it is composed have only the authority de- 
rived from their origin, unless custom or subsequent approbation has 
given special canons greater weight. The second volume, on the con- 
trary, contains several oflBcial collections, made by the authority of the 
Holy See. These are the Decretals of Gregory IX, the Sext, and the 
Clementines. Any papal constitution contained in these collections has 
authority from the very fact of its insertion in the Corpus Juris. The 
second volume also contains the Extravagants of John XXII, and the 
Common Extravagants, both of which are private collections, although 
inserted in the Corpus Juris. 

The Corpus Juris contains the ancient law of the Catholic Church, 
which has been modified and accommodated to the times by more recent 
councils and constitutions of the Holy See. The Council of Trent espe- 
cially made many changes demanded by the altered circumstances of 
the times, and the popes have at different times issued a great number 
of constitutions and laws to meet the constantly changing wants of the 
church. These constitutions are usually quoted by giving the Pope's 
name and the initial words, together with the date of the document. — "A 
Manual of Moral Theology," Rev. Thomas Slater, 8. J. (R. C.J, Vol. I, 
p. 120. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1918. 

Canon Law, Contents of. — The first great collection of canons 
and decretals which the world was privileged to see was made by 
Gratian, a monk of Bologna, who about 1150 published his work entitled 
Decretum Gratiani. Pope Eugenius III approved his work, which im- 
mediately became the highest authority in the Western Church. The 
rapid growth of the papal tyranny soon superseded the Decretum Gra- 
6 



82 CANON LAW 

tiani. Succeeding popes flung their decretals upon the world with a 
prodigality with which the diligence of compilers who gathered them 
up and formed them into new codes, toiled to keep pace. Innocent III 
and Honorius III issued numerous rescripts and decrees, which Greg- 
ory IX commissioned Raymond of Pennafort to collect and publish. 
This the Dominican did in 1234; and Gregory, in order to perfect this 
collection of infallible decisions, supplemented it with a goodly addi- 
tion of his own. This is the more essential part of the canon law, and 
contains a copious system of jurisprudence, as well as rules for the 
government of the church. 

But infallibility had not exhausted itself with these labors. Boni- 
face VIII in 1298 added a sixth part, which he named the Sext. A fresh 
batch of decretals was issued by Clement V in 1313, under the title 
of Clementines. John XXII in 1340 added the Extravagantes, so called 
because they extravagate, or straddle, outside the others. Succeeding 
pontiffs, down to Sixtus IV, added their extravagating articles, which 
came under the name of Extravagantes Communes. The government of 
the world was in some danger of being stopped by the very abundance 
of infallible law; and since the end of the fifteenth century nothing has 
been formally added to this already enormous code. — " The Papacy'' 
Rev. J. A. Wylie, LL. D., pp. 130, 131. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 
1851. 

Canon Law. — Corpus Juris Canonici [Collection of Canon Law]. — 
I. Definition: The term corpus here denotes a collection of documents; 
corpus juris, a collection of laws, especially if they are placed in system- 
atic order. It may signify also an oflacial and complete collection of 
a legislation made by the legislative power, comprising all the laws 
which are in force in a country or society. The term, although it never 
received legal sanction in either Roman or canon law, being merely the 
phraseology of the learned, is used in the above sense when the Corpus 
Juris Civilis at the Roman Christian emperors is meant. The expres- 
sion corpus juris jnay also mean, not the collection of laws itself, but 
the legislation, of a society considered as a whole. Hence Benedict 
XIV could rightly say that the collection of his bulls formed part of 
the Corpus Juris (Jam fere sextus, 1746). 

We cannot better explain the signification of the term Corpus Juris 
Canonici than by showing the successive meanings which were assigned 
to it in the past and which it usually bears at the present day. Under 
the name of Corpus Canonum were designated the collection «f Dio- 
nysius Exiguus and the Collectio Anselmo Dedicata. The Decree of Gra- 
tian is already called Corpus Juris Canonici by a glossator of the twelfth 
century, and Innocent IV calls by this name the Decretals of Gregory IX 
(Ad Expediendos, 9 Sept., 1253). 

Since the second half of the thirteenth century. Corpus Juris Ca- 
nonici, in contradistinction to Corpus Juris Civilis, or Roman law, 
generally denoted the following collections: (1) the Decretals of Greg- 
ory IX; (2) those of Boniface VIII (Sixth Book of the Decretals); 
(3) those of Clement V (Clementinw), i. e., the collections which at that 
time, with the Decree of Gratian, were taught and explained at the 
universities. At the present day, under the above title are commonly 
understood these three collections with the addition of the Decree of 
Gratian, the Extravagantes of John XXII, and the Extravagantes Com- 
munes. — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Yol. IV, art. " Corpus Juris Ca- 
nonici," p. 391. 

Canon Law, Contents of. — The Corpus Juris Canonici is the col- 
lection of ecclesiastical laws in five parts. The first part contains the 
Decretum of Gratian divided into three parts. The second contains the 



CATECHISM OF TRENT 83 

Decretals divided into five books. The third contains the sixth book of 
the Decretals, which is also divided into five books. The fourth con- 
tains the Clementines, also in five books. The fifth contains the Ex- 
travagantes of John XXII, and the Communes, or the Decretals of 
John XXII, and of other pontiffs from Urban IV to Sixtus IV. The 
Decretum of Gratian has no force of law except that which the decretals 
contained in it have of themselves. But the other parts of the canon 
law have the force of law, and are universally binding, for they contain 
the pious utterances of the pontiffs and the decrees of the councils. — 
" Theologia Moralis," Ligorio (R. C), Yol. 7, p. 32. 3d edition. Venice, 
1885. 

Canon Law, Decbee or Gbatian. — It was about 1150 that the Ca- 
maldolese monk, Gratian, professor of theology at the University of 
Bologna, to obviate the difllculties which beset the study of practical, 
external theology (theologia practica externa), i. e., canon law, com- 
posed the work entitled by himself Concordia Discordantium Ganonum, 
but called by others Nova Gollectio, Decreta, Corpus Juris Canonici, also 
Decretum Oratiani, the latter being now the commonly accepted name. 
In spite of its great reputation, the Decretum has never been recognized 
by the church as an oflBcial collection. . . . 

Considered as collections, the Decree of Gratian, the Extravagantes 
Joannis XXII, and the Extravagantes Communes have not, and never 
had, a legal value, but the documents which they contain may possess, 
and as a matter of fact, often do possess, very great authority. More- 
over, custom has even given to several apocryphal canons of the Decree 
of Gratian the force of law. The other collections are oflBcial, and 
consist of legislative decisions still binding, unless abrogated by sub- 
sequent legislation- — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, art. " Corpus 
Juris Canonici," pp. 392, 393. 

Caste, Power of. — Brahmanism is so intensely racial that it may 
well be described as the apotheosis of blood, or as the pride of race 
deified. There is no law so inexorable or so pitiless as the law of caste; 
it binds the Hindu peoples, even though split into a multitude of states, 
into a unity more absolute than the most imperious despotism has ever, 
or could ever anywhere have, achieved. — " The Philosophy of the Chris- 
tian Religion," Andrew Martin Fairbaim, M. A., D. D., LL. D., p. 
232. Neiv York: George H. Doran Company, copyright 1902. 

Catechism of Trent. — The " Profession of the Tridentine Faith " 
was followed in 1566 by the elaborate Roman Catechism, the preparation 
of which the council had at first essayed, but finally handed over to the 
Pope. In 1564, Pius IV, advised by Cardinal Borromeo of Milan, in- 
trusted the work to a learned and distinguished commission of four 
prelates under Borromeo's supervision, — Marini, Foscarari, Calini, and 
the Portuguese Fureiro, who were assisted in matters of style and 
rendering by eminent Latin scholars. The teaching is Dominican 
(three of the four commissioners belonging, as did the Pope, to that 
order) and Thomist — a feature which insured for it the opposition of 
the Jesuit order. It is not meant for the young or for popular reading, 
but for the equipment of the teaching clergy. It is exceedingly long 
and comprehensive, but admirably arranged and lucidly expressed. 
It contains four parts which follow a lengthy introductory treatment of 
preliminary topics, and treats successively of (1) the Apostles' Creed, 
(2) the Sacraments, (3) the Ten Commandments, and (4) the Lord's 
Prayer. It is noteworthy that, while it adds to the Tridentine teaching 
sections which deal with thf limhus patrum, the authority of the 



84 CATECHISM, BELLARMINE'S 

church, and the doctrine of the church, it omits all reference to indul- 
gences and the rosary. Apart from its franker Augustinianism, the 
catechism reproduces very faithfully the substance of the Decrees of 
Trent, whose circumspection and whose massiveness it reflects. — "A 
History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith,'^' William A. Curtis, B. D., 
D. Lift., p. 119. 'New York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 1912. 

Catechisms, Roman Catholic. — Although the Vatican Council re- 
fused by a large majority to accept the catechism submitted to it, 
numerous authorized local catechisms are in circulation for popular 
use throughout the Roman Catholic world, more or less completely re- 
vised to bring them into harmony witb the new decrees. Of the older 
catechisms, besides that of Trent, which was for clerical rather than 
popular use, those of the learned Jesuit, Peter Canisius (a. d. 1554 and 
1566), and Cardinal Bellarmine (a. d. 1603), may be mentioned as 
having commended themselves especially to papal as well as to clerical 
and popular acceptance. Among the most influential and authoritative 
expositions of Roman Catholic doctrine with an apologetic or polemic 
purpose are the Disputationes de Coritroversiis Christianw fldei adversus 
huius Temporis Jiereticos of Robert Bellarmine (a. d. 1587-1590), the 
Exposition de la Doctrine de Vtglise Catholique sur les matieres de 
Controverse of Bossuet (a. d. 1671), the Sym'boliTc of J. A. Mohler 

(a. d. 1832), and the Prwlectiones Theologicce of the Jesuit Perrone 

(A. D. 1835 n.).— Id., p. 123. 

Celibacy. — Celibacy, in the Roman Catholic Church, means the 
permanently unmarried state to which men and women bind themselves 
either by a vow or by the reception of the major orders which implies 
personal purity in thought and deed. . . Very early in the history of 
the church the idea grew up that the unmarried state was preferable 
(Hermas, I. ii. 3; Ignatius to Polycarp, v), and grew into a positive 
contempt of marriage (Origen, Hom. vi. in Num.; Jerome, Ad Jovinia- 
num, i. 4). As early as the second century examples of voluntary vows 
of virginity are found, and the requirement of continence before the 
performance of sacred functions. By the fourth century canons began 
to be passed in that sense (Synod of Neocaesarea, 314 a. d., canon i; 
Synod of Ancyra, 314 a. d., canon x). Unmarried men were preferred 
for ecclesiastical ofllces, though marriage was still not forbidden; in 
fact, the clergy were expressly prohibited from deserting a lawfully 
married wife on religious grounds (Apostolic Canons, v). . . . 

Within its own boundaries the Latin Church has held more and 
more strictly to the requirement of celibacy, though not without con- 
tinual' opposition on the part of the clergy. The large number of can- 
ons on this subject enacted from the eighth century on, shows that their 
enforcement was not easy. After the middle of the eleventh century 
the new ascetic tendency whose champion was Gregory VII had a strong 
influence in this matter. Even before Hildebrand's accession to the 
Papacy, the legislation of Leo IX (1054), Stephen IX (1058), Nicho- 
las II (1059), and Alexander II (1063), had laid down the principles 
which as Pope he was to carry out. In the synod of 1074 he renewed 
the definite enactment of 1059 and 1063, according to which both the 
married priest who said mass and the layman who received communion 
at his hands were excommunicate. . . . 

After the Reformation had done its work, Charles V endeavored by 
the Interim of 1548 to bring about the abolition of these rules, and with 
several other princes requested the discussion of the question at the 
Council of Trent. The council, however, maintained the system as a 
whole, and the following rules are now in force: (1) Through the 



CELIBACY 85 



reception of major orders or the taking of monastic or other solemn 
vows, celibacy becomes so binding a duty that any subsequent marriage 
is null and void. (2) Any one in minor orders who marries loses his 
oflGlce and the right to go on to major orders, but the marriage is valid. 
(3) Persons already married may receive the minor orders if they have 
the intention of proceeding to the major, and show this by taking a vow 
of perpetual abstinence; but the promotion to the higher orders can 
only take place when the wife expresses her willingness to go into a 
convent and take the veil. The Council of Trent further lays down that 
the functions of the minor orders may be performed by married men 
in default of unmarried — though not by those who are living with a 
second wife. 

In the nineteenth century attempts were not lacking, even within 
the Roman Catholic Church, to bring about the abolition of celibacy. 
They were rather hindered than helped by temporal governments, and 
always firmly rejected by Rome. Celibacy has been abolished among 
the Old Catholics; and modern legislation in Germany, France, Bel- 
gium, Italy, and Switzerland authorizes the marriage both of priests 
and of those who have taken a solemn vow of chastity. Austria, Spain, 
and Portugal still forbid it. The evangelical churches at the very outset 
released their clergy from the obligation of celibacy, professing to find 
no validity in the arguments adduced in its favor on the Roman side. 
— The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II, 
art. " Celibacy," pp. 465, 466. 

Celibacy, Canon on. — Canon X. If any one saith that the marriage 
state is to be placed above the state of virginity or of celibacy, and that 
it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or in celibacy 
than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema. — ''Dogmatic 
Canons and Decrees," p. 164. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 
1912. 

Celibacy, Evils of. — To tell the truth, the parish clergy were not 
in a temper to think of their own moral elevation, being in sad straits 
owing to the oppression practised by the monasteries and cathedral 
chapters, which, after having appropriated most of the parishes, refused 
to give their secular vicars more than the merest pittance. So wide- 
spread was concubinage that a French council complained (Paris, or 
Sens, c. 23, 1429) of the general impression being prevalent that forni- 
cation was merely venial. At Constance and Basel tne abrogation of 
clerical celibacy was proposed by no less a person than the emperor 
Sigismund. Even small towns in this age owned their public brothels. 

Faced by all these evils, the heads of the church made proof of 
astounding forbearance, preferring to leave things alone, so long as 
their own right, and claims, and revenues were left untouched. The 
period was deeply conscious of its own irregularities. Throughout it we 
have to listen to complaints, and demands for reform. Though this is, 
of course, a pleasing feature, yet the fact that, in spite of countless 
desires and efforts, two centuries did not suffice to purge the church, is 
a sad witness to the deeply rooted character of the evils. — ''Manual 
of Church History," Dr. F. X. Funk, Roman Catholic Professor of The- 
ology in the University of TilUngen, Vol. II, p. 77. London: Kegan Paul, 
Trench, Trilbner & Co., 1910. 

Note. — This work was published in London in 1910, having the imprimatur 
of Archbishop Bourne's vicar-general, dated May 16, 1910. — Eds. 

Censorship of Books. — After the printing press was invented and 
used to advance the cause of the Reformation, measures for its regu- 



86 CENSORSHIP OP BOOKS 



lation were introduced by the church, which first established a formal 
censorship of books. In a letter addressed to the archbishops of Co- 
logne, Mainz, Treves, and Magdeburg, Alexander VI ordered (1501) 
that no book should be printed without special authorization. The 
Lateran Council of 1515 sanctioned the constitution of Leo X. which 
provided that no book should be printed without having been examined 
in Rome by the papal vicar and the master of the sacred palace, in other 
countries by the bishop of the diocese or his deputy and the inquisitor 
of heresies. 

Further and more detailed legislation followed, and the Council of 
Trent decreed (Session IV): "It shall not be lawful to print, or cause 
to be printed, any books relating to religion without the name of the 
author; neither shall any one hereafter sell any such books, or even 
retain them in his possession, unless they have been first examined and 
approved by the ordinary, on pain of anathema and the pecuniary fine 
imposed by the canon of the recent Lateran Council." On these regula- 
tions are based a number of enactments in different dioceses which 
are still in force. The council decreed also that no theological book 
should be printed without first receiving the approbation of the bishop 
of the diocese; and this rule is extended in the monastic orders so far 
as to require the permission of superiors for the publication of a book 
on any subject. 

The Council of Trent left the further provision concerning the 
whole subject to a special commission, which- was to report to the Pope. 
In accordance with its findings, Pius IV promulgated the rule sub- 
mitted to him and a list of prohibited books in the constitution Domi- 
nici greffis custodiw of March 24, 1564. Extensions and expositions of 
this ruling were issued by Clement VIII, Sixtus V, Alexander VII, and 
other popes. The present practice is based upon the constitution 8ol- 
licita ac provida of Benedict XIV (July 10, 1753). The maintenance 
and extension of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was intrusted to a 
special standing committee of cardinals, the Congregation of the Index, 
which from time to time publishes new editions (the latest, Turin, 
1895). There is also an Index Lihrorum Expurgatorum, containing 
books which are tolerated after the excision of certain passages, and 
another Librorum Expurgandorum, of those which are still in need of 
such partial expurgation. The prohibition to read or possess books thus 
forbidden is binding upon all Roman Catholics, though in special cases 
dispensations from it may be obtained. The most recent regulation of 
the whole matter was made by the bull Officiorum ac Munerum of Leo 
XIII, Jan. 25, 1897. — The New Sehaft-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, Vol. II, art. " Censorship and Prohibition of Books," p. 493. 

Censorship of Books, Index Defined. — Index of Prohibited Books, 
or simply Index, is used in a restricted sense to signify the exact list 
or catalogue of books, the reading of which is forbidden to Catholics 
by the highest ecclesiastical authority. This list forms the second and 
larger part of the codex entitled Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which 
contains the entire ecclesiastical legislation relating to books. . . . 

A book is prohibited or put on the Index by decree of the Sacred 
Congregation of the Roman Inquisition, of the Sacred OflSce, or of the 
Index, which decree, though approved by the Pope (in formd communij, 
always remains a purely congregational decree. It need scarcely be 
mentioned that the Pope alone, without having recourse to any of the 
congregations, may put a book on the Index, either by issuing a bull or 
a brief, or in any other way he chooses. . . . With regard to the Congre- 
gation of the Index, however, Pius X, when reorganizing the Roman 
Curia by the Constitution '' Sapienti consilio" (29 June, 1908), decreed 



CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS 87 

as follows : " Henceforth it will be the task of this Sacred Congregation 
not only to examine carefully the books denounced to it, to prohibit them 
if necessary, and to grant permission for reading forbidden books, but 
also to supervise, ex officio, books that are being published, and to pass 
sentence on sucn as deserve to be prohibited." . . , 

The last and best edition of the Index, published by Leo XIII 
(Rome, 1900) and now in force, was reprinted in 1901, and again under 
Pius X in 1904 and 1907. — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Yol. VII, art. 
" Index of Prohibited Books," pp. 721, 722. 

Censorship of Books. — Numerous editions of the Index ILihrorum 
Prohihitorum'] have appeared from time to time. That issued under 
Benedict XIV (Rome, 1744) contains between nine and ten thousand 
entries of books and authors, alphabetically arranged; of these about 
one third are cross references. Prefixed to it are the ten rules sanc- 
tioned by the Council of Trent, of which the tenor is as follows: The 
first rule orders that all books condemned by popes or general councils 
before 1515, which were not contained in that Index, should be reputed 
to be condemned in such sort as they were formerly condemned. The 
second rule prohibits all the works of heresiarchs, such as Luther and 
Calvin, and those works by heretical authors which treat of religion; 
their other works to be allowed after examination. The third and 
fourth rules relate to versions of the Scripture, and define the classes 
of persons to whom the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue may 
be permitted. The fifth allows the circulation, after expurgation, of 
lexicons and other works of reference compiled by heretics. The sixth 
relates to books of controversy. The seventh orders that all obscene 
books be absolutely prohibited, except ancient books written by hea- 
thens, which were tolerated " propter sermonis elegantiam et proprie- 
tatem," but were not to be used in teaching boys. The eighth rule is 
upon methods of expurgation. The ninth prohibits books of magic and 
judicial astrology; but " theories and natural observations published for 
the sake of furthering navigation, agriculture, or the medical art are 
permitted." The tenth relates to printing, introducing, having, and cir- 
culating books. Persons reading prohibited books incur excommunica- 
tion forthwith (statim). — " A Catholic Dictionary,'" Addis and Arnold 
(R. G.J, art. ''Index of Prohibited Books," p. 481. New York: Benziger 
Brothers, 1893. 

Censorship of Books, Classifications of the Index. — The first 
list of forbidden books was drawn up by the Theological Faculty of 
Paris, in 1554, and the first list of this kind which had the sanction of 
law was the one promulgated in Spain in 1558 by Philip II. Subsequent 
to this decree, a much larger Index was authorized in 1559 by Paul IV, 
and possessed a threefold classification: (1) The works of authors whose 
complete writings, also on secular subjects, were forbidden; (2) cer- 
tain particular writings of authors whose remaining productions were 
not prohibited; and (3) anonymous writings, religious and otherwise, 
including every publication of that kind subsequent to the year 1519. 
Among these productions were many which did not touch upon the sub- 
ject of religion and had been in the hands of the learned for hundreds 
of years, and there were some books among them which had been com- 
mended by former popes, as, for example, the " Commentary on the New 
Testament," by Erasmus, which was approved on Sept. 10, 1518, in a 
brief by Pope Leo X. The Bishop of Badajor suggested a fivefold classi- 
fication of the Index: (1) Heretical books, which were to be burned; 

(2) anonymous books, which were to be allowed when unobjectionable; 

(3) books of mixed content, which were to be expurgated; (4) trans- 
lations of the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular, and prayer books, 



88 CHITTIM 

which were to be forbidden or allowed, according to their character; 
(5) books on magic, black art, and fortune telling. — "Modernism and 
the Reformation,''^ John Benjamin Rust, Ph. D., D. D., p. 175. 'New 
York: Fleming H. Revell Company. 

Census in Luke's Gospel. — It should in all candor be noted just 
what archeology has proved concerning this matter, and what points 
are still, from the archeological side, outstanding. It has proved that 
the census was a periodic occurrence once in fourteen years, that this 
system was in operation as early as 20 a. d., and that it was customary 
for people to go to their ancestral abodes for enrolment. It has made it 
probable that the census system was established by Augustus, and that 
Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, though these Jast two points 
are not yet fully established by archeological evidence. So far as the 
new material goes, however, it confirms the narrative of Luke. — 
''Archeology and the Bible,'' George A. Barton, Ph. D., LL. D., p. 437. 
PhiladeJphm: American Sunday-School Union, copyright 1916, 

Ohittim. — Chittim was one of the sons of javan, who was one of 
the sons of Japheth, by whose postei^ity " the isles of the Gentiles wef e 
^.ivided" (G«n. 10: 5), and peopled, that is Europe, and i.he countries 
to which the Asiatics passed by sea, for such the Hebrews called is- 
lands. Chittim is used for the descendants of Chittim, as Asshur is 
put for the descendants of Asshur, that is, the Assyrians: but what 
people were the descendants of Chittim, or what country was meant by 
** the coasts of Chittim,'* it is not so easy to determine. The critics 
and commentators are generally divided into two opinions, the one 
asserting that Macedonia, and the other that Italy, was the country 
here intended; and each opinion is recommended and authorized by 
soM% t>f the first and greatest names in learning; as not to mention any 
others, Grotius and Le Clerc contend for the former, Bochart and 
Yitringa are strenuous for the latter. But there is no reason why we 
may not adopt both opinions; and especially as it is very well known 
and agreed on all hands, that colonies came from Greece to Italy; and, 
as Josephus saith, "that all islands and most maritime places are called 
Chethim by the Hebrews; " and as) manifest traces of the name are to 
be found in both countries, the ancient name of Macedonia having 
been Macettia, and the Latins having before been called Cetii. What 
appears most probably is, that the sons of Chittim settled first in 
Asia Minor, where were a people called Cetei, and a river called Cetium, 
according to Homer and Strabo. From Asia they might pass over into 
the island Cyprus, which Josephus saith was possessed by Chethim, and 
called Chethima; and where was also the city of Cittium, famous for 
being the birthplace of Zeno, the founder of the sect of the Stoics, who 
was therefore called the Cittiean. And from thence they might send 
forth colonies into Greece and Italy. This plainly appears, that wher- 
ever the " land of Chittim " or the " isles of Chittim " are mentioned in 
Scripture, there are evidently meant some countries or islands in the 
Mediterranean. — " Dissertations on the Prophecies," Thomas Newton, 
B. D., pp. 76, 77. London: B. Blake, 1840. 

Christmas, Origin of. — It is admitted by the most learned and 
candid writers of all parties that the day of our Lord's birth cannot be 
determined, and that within the Christian church no such festival as 
Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the 
fourth century was far advanced did it gain much observance. How, 
then, did the Romish Church fix on December the 25th as Christmas 
Day? Why, thus: Long before the fourth century, and long before the 



CHRISTMAS 89 

Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated among the heathen at 
that precise time of the year, in honor of the birth of the son of the 
Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may fairly be presumed that, in 
order to conciliate the heathen, and to swell the number of the nominal 
adherents of Christianity, the same festival was adopted by the Roman 
Church, giving it only the name of Christ. 

This tendency on the part of Christians to meet paganism halfway 
was very early developed; and we find Tertullian, even in his day, 
about the year 230, bitterly lamenting the inconsistency of the disciples 
of Christ in this respect, and contrasting it with the strict fidelity of the 
pagans to their own superstition. . . . Upright men strove to stem 
the tide, but in spite of all their efforts, the apostasy went on, till the 
church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under 
pagan superstition. 

That Christmas was originally a pagan festival, is beyond all 
doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still 
celebrated, prove its origin. In Egypt, the son of Isis, the Egyptian title 
for the queen of heaven, was born at this very time, " about the time 
of the winter solstice." The very name by which Christmas is pop- 
ularly known among ourselves — Yule day — proves at once its pagan 
and Babylonian origin. " Yule " is the Chaldee name for an " infant " 
or " little child; " and as the 25th of December was called by our pagan 
Anglo-Saxon ancestors, " Yule day," or the " Child's day," and the night 
that preceded it, " Mother night," long before they came in contact with 
Christianity, that sufficiently proves its real character. Far and wide, in 
the realms of paganism, was this birthday observed. 

This festival has been commonly believed to have had only an astro- 
nomical character, referring simply to the completion of the sun's 
yearly course and the commencement of a new cycle. But there is in- 
dubitable evidence that the festival in question had a much higher 
reference than this — that it commemorated not merely the figurative 
birthday of the sun in the renewal of its course, but the birthday of 
the grand Deliverer. 

Among the Sabeans of Arabia, who regarded the moon, and not the 
sun, as the visible symbol of the favorite object of their idolatry, the 
same period was observed as the birth festival. Thus we read in 
Stanley's " Sabean Philosophy:" "On the 24th of the tenth month," that 
is December, according to our reckoning, " the Arabians celebrated the 
birthday of the Lord — that is, the moon." The Lord Moon was the 
great object of Arabian worship, and that Lord Moon, according to them, 
was born on the 24th of December, which clearly shows that the birth 
which they celebrated had no necessary connection with the course 
of the sun. 

It is worthy of special note, too, that if Christmas day among the 
ancient Saxons of this island was observed to celebrate the birth of any 
lord of the host of heaven, the case must have been precisely the same 
here as it was in Arabia. The Saxons, as is well known, regarded the 
sun as a female divinity, and the moon as a male. It must have been 
the birthday of the Lord Moon, therefore, and not of the sun, that was 
celebrated by them on the 25th of December, even as the birthday of the 
same Lord Moon was observed by the Arabians on the 24th of December. 
— " The Two BaTyylons" Rev. Alexander Hislop, pp. 92-94, 7th edition. 
London: S. W. Partridge d Co. 

Christmas, Not Obsebved in Early Church. — It is now generally 
granted that the day of the nativity was not observed as a feast in any 
part of the church, east or west, till some time in the fourth century. 
If any day had been earlier fixed upon as the Lord's birthday, it was 



do CHRONOLOGY, OLD TESTAMENT 

not commemorated by any religious rites, nor is it mentioned by any 
writers. — *' The Ldfe of Our Lord upon the Earth," Samuel J. An- 
drews, p. 17. New York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 1891. 

Chronology, Eponym Canon. — The " Eponym Canon "... has 
been of great service in connection with Assyrian chronology. The 
eponym was an oflacial of high rank who held office for one year. A 
careful record of each name was kept, the name of the reigning king 
was also inscribed in another column, and any great event might be 
mentioned. In one list we are told that during the year of office of an 
eponym named " Pur-Sagali in the month Sivan (i. e., May-June), 
an eclipse of the sun took place; and recent astronomical calculations 
prove that an eclipse of the sun, visible at Nineveh, took place on 
June 15, 763 b. c. With this year as a fixed point we can accurately 
assign correct dates to all the important events." — " The Bible and the 
British Museum," Ada R. Hahershon, p. 47. London : Morgan and Scott, 
1909. 

Chronology, Differences in Ancient. — The chronology of ancient 
nations — China, Babylon, Egypt — has been considered as subversive 
of the Scriptural view as to the age of the human race. But it is a 
well-known fact that experts differ very seriously upon the point. Their 
calculations range, for Egypt — starting from the reign of King Menes 
— from 5,867 (Champollion) to 4,455 (Brugsch), and from 3,892 (Lep- 
sius) to 2,320 (Wilkinson). As to Babylon, Bunsen places the starting- 
point for the historic period in 3,784, Brandis in 2,458, Oppert in 3,540 • — 
a difference of thousands of years (cf. Bavinck, " Geref. Dogmatik," II, 
557). Perhaps here, too, future research will bring the scientific and the 
Biblical view into fuller harmony. — The International Standard Bible 
Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. ''Anthro- 
pology," p. 151. 

Chronology, Data for Old Testament. — External data are now 
much more abundant than they were in the times of Ussher and the 
other great Biblical chronologists. To the Jewish and Greek and Latin 
sources which they possessed, have now been added an immense body of 
facts accumulated in the explorations of the past sixty years. 

5. Jewish Sources. — Certain extra-Biblical Jewish sources of chron- 
ological information have long been known to scholars. 

a. In the Septuagint and in the Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch 
are some numerals and other chronological data that differ from those 
in our Hebrew Bibles. The differences are especially important for the 
pre-Abrahamic times, but are not limited to these. 

b. Josephus abounds in chronological data, in addition to those 
which he has copied from the Bible. His numerals have been carelessly 
copied, and it is evident that he had only very confused ideas of such 
matters as, for example, the succession of the kings of Persia. But he 
is generally reliable as a witness transmitting tradition, and in certain 
conditions his testimony to a number as traditional is of great Impor- 
tance. 

c. The Seder Olam is a Jewish chronological work written early in 
the Christian era. The Seder Olam Zutta is an appendix to it, written 
many centuries later. 

6. Greek and Roman Sources. — Herodotus, about b. c. 445, Diodorus 
Siculus, B. c. 44 nearly, Strabo, who died 25 a. d., with other classical 
writers, abound in chronological materials, more or less trustworthy, 
for the peoples with whom the Israelites came into contact. 



CHRONOLOGY, OLD TESTAMENT 91 

7. Other Ancient Sources. — Certain ancient writers, Babylonian. 
Egyptian, Tyrian, etc., are cited by Josephus and the classical histo 
rians and their successors. Prominent among these are Berosus for the 
Babylonian history, and Manetho for the Egyptian. Accounts of them 
may be found in books of reference. Manetho wrote in Greek, at Alex- 
andria, probably in the third century b. c. Fragments of his history of 
Egypt are preserved in Josephus (Gont. Ap., i, 14, 26, and contexts) and 
in Julius Africanus (see SbJ. The fragments are often confused and 
contradictory, but they are still an important source for Egyptian 
chronology. 

8. Gompendiums of Chronology. — There were ancient attempts to 
arrange history in chronological schemes, some of which have relations 
with the chronology of the Bible. 

a. The introduction of eras began early. We are familiar with the 
Roman methods of dating by consulships, or from the founding of the 
city; and with the Greek methods by Olympiads, or by the terms of the 
Archons. Among usages of this sort the so-called Seleucid era is 
especially connected with the Biblical chronology, being that so often 
mentioned in the books of the Maccabees and in Josephus as " the year 
of the Greeks." It was initiated by the Seleucid Greek dynasty at 
Antioch, its first year corresponding to b. c. 312. 

&. Lists of dated historical events have been known from ancient 
times. To say nothing of the work of Manetho and Berosus and others 
(mentioned in 7), a famous book of this kind is the *' Ghronographia" 
of Julius Africanus, written about 220 a. d., and now extant only in 
the fragments quoted by Eusebius in his " Ghronicon," written about 325 
A. D., and in the citations made, in part from the " Ghronicon " and in 
part from a copy of Africanus, by the monk Georgius Syncellus of the 
ninth century. 

c. On the whole the most important of these compendiums is the 
one which is commonly described as the Canon of Ptolemy, made by 
Claudius Ptolemseus, an Alexandrian geographer and astronomer and 
mathematician, in the second century after Christ. In the form in 
which it is available for our use it is a list of sovereigns, Babylonian, 
Persian, Greek, Egyptian, and Roman, beginning b. c. 747, and extend- 
ing to the time of the author. By its aid the date of any astronomical 
or other occurrence of that period can be stated as in such and such 
a year of such and such a king. In the Ussher chronology this canon is 
undervalued, but it is now regarded as accurate. At certain points 
Ptolemy may have been mistaken as to his political facts, but not so as 
to affect his presentation of the succession of the years. 

9. Additional Sources Uncovered l)y Modern Explorations. — These 
are numerous and valuable, both for enabling us to understand the data 
that were previously known, and as furnishing additional data. We can 
here look only at some of the more important. 

10. Assyrian Data. — a. The most important single document is 
the one which, following Mr. George Smith, we will call the Assyrian 
Eponym Canon. Other Assyriologists give various other designations 
to it. For certain purposes the Assyrians named the year after a 
certain public oflacial; and the canon is a list of these oflacers, one for 
each year. No complete copy is known, but by piecing together what 
remains of several different copies there is a continuous list of about 
265 names, up to b. c. 647, with a broken list for the decades later than 
that. So the list covers the time from soon after the close of Solomon's 
reign to the reign of Josiah. Some copies have historical notes ap- 
pended, and these are generally, though not always, confirmed by the 
other Assyrian data. It is possible that some of the existing copies 



92 CHRONOLOGY, OLD TESTAMENT 

were made as early as the seventh century before Christ, before the 
downfall of Assyria. There are some slight discrepancies, but the list 
is in a high degree trustworthy. 

&. There are also now available many records of Assyrian kings. 
For example, we have annals of Shalmanezer II, Tiglath-pilezer III, 
Sargon, Sennacherib, Bsarhaddon, Asshurbanipal, giving dated accounts 
of their exploits, year by year, besides other accounts which mention 
occasional dates. Long numbers are also given. For example, Sen- 
nacherib says that he brought back certain gods which had been taken 
to Babylon 418 years previously, in the time of Tiglath-pilezer. In some 
of these records a king mentions another as his son, or mentions his 
father or grandfather, thus marking the reigns as continuous. These 
records variously supplement and interpret the canon. 

c. In addition there have been discovered records of temples, votive 
tablets, laws, records of business transactions, including dated events 
that serve to fill out those in the important documents. 

d. The Assyrian chronology has two methods of designating any 
given year. The year which we designate b. c. 678 is in the Canon of 
Ptolemy the third year of Esarhaddon, king of Babylon (and Assyria). 
The Assyrians would sometimes designate it in the same way, the third 
year of Esarhaddon. But they would also designate it as the year of 
the eponym of Nergal-sar-utsur, and the following year as that of 
Abramu, and so forth. 

11. Babylonian Data. — No Babylonian eponym list is known. But 
there are Babylonian documents, especially what may in a general way 
be called the Babylonian chronicles, written in the Persian period or 
earlier, including lists of dynasties, lists of kings with the number of 
years they reigned, and other lists with dated records of exploits In 
the reign of each king. The data also include long numbers, especially 
summaries of the duration of the successive dynasties. Add to these 
the same kinds of private documents as are found among the Assyrian 
sources. 

12. Assyrio-Batylonian Data. — From very early times the history 
of Assyria and that of Babylonia were interwoven, and there are some 
chronological materials that are common to the two. 

a. There are fragments of writings that gave a synchronous history 
of the two countries. They describe the relations and the exploits of 
Babylonian and Assyrian kings who were contemporaries, frequently 
dating events by year, month, and day. Some of them carry the chro- 
nology far back, but they exist in so mutilated a form that they do not 
give us a continuous chronology. 

&. Some of the long numbers compare Babylonian events with 
Assyrian. 

13. Egyptian Data. — These are abundant and various, but they give 
us no continuous scheme of dates. All alleged continuous schemes are 
inferential. That none of them are final may be inferred from the fact 
that they are numerous, and increasing in number. The older sources 
give us three different and disagreeing recensions of the numbers of 
Manetho. The newer sources include tables giving lists of kings, and 
superabundant materials for some parts of the history, including por- 
traits of kings and distinguished men, their authentic mummies, mem- 
oranda of their exploits and their business transactions and their re- 
ligious worship and their home life and their ideas. In these materials 
are immense numbers of dates. At points in the history we are able to 
date minutely fragmentary successions of events. But anything like 
a complete Egyptian chronology is still out of reach. 



CHRONOLOGY, NUMBER SEVEN IN 93 

14. Astronomical data. — Ancient records sometimes mention astro- 
nomical phenomena that are capable of being identified, and of being 
verified by calculation. A particularly important instance of this kind 
IS an eclipse of the sun mentioned in the Assyrian records as occurring 
in the tenth year of Asshur-daan III, the calculated date of which is 
June 15, B. c. 763. 

Correct astronomical calculations are in themselves decisive, but 
the identification of the phenomena on which they are based is often 
merely conjectural. Most attempts to connect them with Biblical dates 
are insufliciently grounded. Men connect them with many Egyptian 
facts of different kinds, but no- consensus has been reached. 

15. Connecting Links 'between the Biblical and the Ethnical Chro- 
nologies. — With Assyria and Babylonia these are numerous and exact, 
and the continuity with modern chronology is complete. For instance, 
the first year of Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon was the year that began in 
March, b. c. 604. This was the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah 
(Jer. 25: 1, etc.). From such coincidences one may derive a complete 
scheme of dates. The Egyptian connections are less certain and less 
exact. — " The Dated Events of the Old Testament," Willis Judson 
Beecher, D. D., pp. 7-10. Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Com- 
pany, copyright 1907. 

Chronology, Prominence of the Number Seven in. — A prominent 
feature in the Hebrew calendar of worship is the dominance of seven. 
Every seventh day was set apart from labor as a time of rest and holy 
convocation. Every seventh year the land rested from tillage; at the 
end of seven of these periods of seven years, the land rested a second 
year, and was restored to the family to which it originally belonged, 
whatever changes of tenure might have taken place during the cycle. 
There were seven days of rest and holy convocation during the year, in 
addition to those which occurred weekly. The seventh month of the 
year was ushered in with the sound of trumpets, proceeding first from 
the sanctuary, and immediately propagated through the land; and its 
first day was one of the seven annually recurring sabbaths. It was also 
signalized by the assignment to it of those festivals which were not 
bound to some other time of the year by historical association or nat- 
ural fitness; the day of atonement, the festival of tabernacles, and the 
day of rest and convocation, which closed not only this particular fes- 
tival, but all the annually recurring solemnities of the year, being in- 
cluded in the seventh or sabbatical month. The Passover, and the 
festival of tabernacles, occupied each seven days; and this was the 
limit of all solemnities which lasted more than one day. 

The observance of the seventh day of the week is expressly con- 
nected in the decalogue with the work of God in creating the world; 
and the number seven, whenever it determined the length of festivals 
or the time of their occurrence, as in the instances cited above, con- 
veyed, to one versed in Hebrew symbolism, thoughts of the union of the 
infinite with the finite, of the divine with the human, of Jehovah with 
his people. — " History and Significance of the Sacred Tabernacle of the 
Hebrews," Edward E. Atwater, pp. 371, 872. New York: Dodd and 
Mead, 1875. 

Chronology, Uncertainty of the Jewish Calendar. — Amid the 
uncertainty of the Jewish calendar of that time, an astronomical reck- 
oning of the year of his [Christ's] death can scarcely be established. — 
" A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History," Dr. John C. L. Gieseler, Vol. 
I. p. 55. Edinburgh: T. <f- T. Clark, 1846. 



94 



CHRONOLOGY, PATRIARCHS 



•^''3 5 



tH O 



«M ,r] -l_> 

O +J pi 









n r-i. ^ -v 



o 

U 

a 



m 
"^ . ^ 

O bJO ^ 

g 05 a a 






o 

m 
ffl 
o 
Pi 
< 

M 

H 
*«) 
Ph 

W 



U 
o, Oi 

o 






o o 



-t-> -U rt 

aT d 






ft 



.a^ 



0) 






05 

u 



a? 

'-I ^ 



ft . 
u 



Id 

P^ 0) ,.l^ 

X2 Cd cS 



bfi o 

o 53 S 

fi ™ S 

S <^ S 

&H "^ 05 



■73 ■<* 
O t- 

•r" 00 
$-1 

ft ^ 



O) 



o 

+-" ti 05 
zn ^ 



8 














oin 


8 


irt 


inLT) 


in 


(N 


CJM 


O 


8 


t— t 
(M 


CO 
CO 


■^ 


-^ 


■* 


to 


(N 


N 


<N 


.-H 


— i^s 


lOi-i 


o- • 


8 


^ 


.-HO 


CO • 


CO 


COCO 


CO • 


o 


cqca 


N • 


»H 


8 


— S " 

00 


inoo • • 
inoo • 


8 


(N 


N 


NC^J • 


00 


W 


IN 


CMCNJ • 




~8 


00 y5^- cooooo ■ • • 


o 


in woo ooo<£> • • • 


o 


^^ 


«-H r-l .-H rH .— ( .— ( • . . 


o^ 


(N 


esj NC^ Nc^cvi • • • 


.-H 


■■">< 


^D 


<£! too^ cooo 


~~8~ 


2< 


O 


Oi 5:^2; °0'^ ■ • 


P^ 


O 


o oo oo 


o 


<M 


C>5 


Cvl CJC^ (MM 


N 


"8 




o 


o 

05 


8 


<Tt 




OJ 


<ji 


.-H 


•M 




1— ( 


.-H 


N 


8~ 




1 OXTIOO 


o 




1 l-H-tJ«0 


^^ 


00 




000000 


N 


1—1 




! rH,— 1,-H 


evi 


o 




cooo 


o 


o 




esjinoo 


o 


^^ 




ooo 


CO 


t— * 




1— I^Hi-H 


N 


(£> 


Deluge SS 
A.M. 1656. ^^ 


S§ : : ; : Deluge b.c. 2348 


"~ o 

o 


»H 


• -^""v^» ,_,,_, 


.-Hi— 1 • . . • 


CM 


~o 








'■ o 


o 


L 





o 


lO 


L 


n 


in 


fl 




■H 


CM 


8 


(N 
<N 




: 8 


Tf 


rj" 




<o 


1-H 


i-H 




N 


o 








O 


o 








O 


CO 








o 


f-H 








CM 


^ 


inc 


5 




O 


o 


coo 


^ 




O 


CM 


NC^ 


] 




00 


i-l 


f-4r- 


■( 




CM 


~o 


o 1 






o 


o 


Tf 1 






o 


I-( 


f— ( 1 






<Ji 


rH 


•-' 1 






CM 


~o 


Cv 


J 


^D 




o 


8 


^ 


r 
5 


§ 






r-( 






T-» 




CO 


o 


o 




t> 




o 


o 


00 




00 




o 


o> 


Oi 




Oi 




.-t 

CO 


o 






Tt . 




o 


o 






t> • 




o 


00 






00 ; 




CO 


o 










o 


o 










o 


t^ 










CO 

CO 


o 






NO • • 




o 


o 






e<ioo • • 




o 


o 






0«3 • . 




CO 


o 










o 


o 










o 


in 










in 

CO 


o 






o • • • • 




o 


o 






!£).... 




o 


-* 






Tt • • • • 




CO 


o 




inio 




• § 


^^ 




CNJOi . . . . 




CO 




coco : : : : : 




o 

CO 


o 




in • • 




~ o 


^ 




00 






S 


(N 




01 • 






00 
CO 


o 


c 


5 • • 






o 


o 











2 


t— 1 




4 • • 






en 

CO 










o 


w 


tH 








o 
o 












tH 








. , 


• w 


12 




: : :, 


S, '■ -A ■ '■ 




• o 


^s 






2i '"S J • 






52 a 


i 


S C CO, 


^•d ox: Jtl^ 


'.X ". '. '. ■ 


. • : rt • : .^ £ 


• «5 
1^ (I) 



;^ 



53s 



C3 

'is 
A 
O 

O 
si 



•?3 
o 






O 
O 

^^ 
fj. so ?$ 

. •<s> -iS" 

2 §^ -< 

.X CD s 









P 






CHRONOLOGY, ANCIENT DATES 



95 



Chronology, Some Ancient Dates. — 



B. c. 

1276, circ, Exodus of Israel 
1120-1090, Tiglath-pileser I 
1080-50 XXth Eg. dynasty 
1050-945, XXIst Eg. dynasty 
931, circ, Division of the kingdom 
930-728, XXII-XXVth Eg. dynasties 
884-60, Assurnatsirpal king of As- 
syria 
860-25, Shalmaneser II king of As- 
syria 
854, Shal.'s battle at Karkar 
851, Probable date of death of Ahab 
850, circ, Moabite Stone set up 
842, Jehu paid tribute to Shal. II 
812-783, Adad-nirari III king of As- 
syria 
804-797, Adad-nirari's western cam- 
paigns 
745-27, Tiglath-pileser III king of 

Assyria 
740, Capture of Arpad 
739, Syria reduced 
732, Damascus captured 
727-22, Shal. IV king of Assyria 
722-05, Sargon II king of Assyria 
722, Fall of Samaria 
720, Hamath reduced 
720, Eg, army defeated 
717, Fall of Carchemish 
715, Importations into Samaria 
711 (or 713), Ashdod reduced 
710 Merodach-Baladan's alliance 

against Sargon 
705, Death of Sargon 
705-681, Sennacherib king of Assy- 
ria 
701, Campaign against Judah 
681, Death of Sennacherib 
681-668, Esarhaddon king of Assy- 
ria 
678, Esarh. in West-land 



B. c. 

673, Esarh. against Egypt 
670, Esarh. against Egypt 
668-26, Assurbanfpal king of Assy- 
ria 
662, Destruction of Thebes 
650, circ, Destruction of Susa 
648, Assurb. king of Babylon 
626, Death of Assurbanipal 
625, Nabopolassar's appointment 
607-6, Fall of Nineveh 
605, Neb.'s battle with Necho 
604-561, Nebuchadrezzar king of 

Babylon 
561-559, Evil-Merodach king of 

Babylon 
559-555, Nergalsharezer king of 

Babylon 
555-538, Nabonidus king of Babylon 
559, Rise of Cyrus 
549, Cyrus absorbed Media 
538, Fall of Babylon 
529, Death of Cyrus 
529-2, Cambyses king of Persia 
522, Suicide of Cambyses 
521-485, Darius (I) Hystaspes 
516, Capture of Babylon by Darius 
516, Completion of second temple 
515, Behistun inscription inscribed 
508, Scythia invaded 
490, Battle of Marathon 
485-64, Xerxes I (Ahasuerus) king 

of Persia 
485, Egypt subdued 
483, Feast of Xerxes 
480, Battle of Salamis 
479, Battle of Plataea 
464-24, Artaxerxes (1) Longimanus 

king of Persia 
458, Ezra's return from Babylon 
445, Nehemiah's return from Susa 
436, Nehemiah's return to Susa. 



675-4, Esarh. in the desert 

— " The Monuments and the Old Testament,'' Ira Maurice Price, Ph. D., 
pp. 321-323. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copy- 
right 1907. 



Chronology, Synchronisms of Sacred and Profane. — We have, 
then, . . . the following synchronisms: 

1. The 1st of Nebuchadnezzar coincides wholly or in part with the 
4th of Jehoiakim. Jer. 25: 1. 

2. The 10th of Zedekiah, which we have found = 589 b. c. (1 Ni- 
san), coincides wholly or in part with the 18th of Nebuchadnezzar. 
Jer. 32: 1. 

3. The epoch of Jeconiah's captivity, and therefore of the reign of 
Zedekiah, lies in the 8th of Nebuchadnezzar. 2 Kings 24: 12. 



96 CHRONOLOGY, TIME OP PAUL 

4. The lOtk'day of the 5th month of the 11th of Zedekiah falls in 
the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar. 2 Kings 25: 8. — " Chronology of the Holy 
Scriptures" Henry Browne, M. A., p. 168. London: John W. Parker, 

Chronology, Life of Paul. — The chronology of the life of Paul 
cannot be fully determined from the Bible itself. Such chronological 
data as the New Testament affords help us only to a relative chronology. 
Could the year of one of the dates given by the New Testament be 
determined by a date of the Roman Empire, it would enable scholars 
to fix with approximate certainty the other dates. Hitherto the endeavor 
to do this has centered about the recall of Felix from Palestine and the 
coming of Festus (Acts 24: 27), but there has been so much uncertainty 
about the date of this recall, that systems of chronology, differing from 
one another by from four to five years, have been constructed. A 
fragmentary inscription has come to light from Delphi, which seems to 
give us the desired aid for our Pauline chronology in that it fixes the 
date of the coming of Gallio to Corinth (Acts 18: 12). This inscription, 
as its lacunae are supplied by Deissmann, is as follows: 

" Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maxi- 
mus, of tribunican authority for the twelfth time, imperator the twenty- 
sixth time, father of the country, consul for the fifth time, honorable, 
greets the city of the Delphians. Having long been well disposed to the 
city of the Delphians. ... I have had success. I have observed the reli- 
gious ceremonies of the Pythian Apollo . . . now it is said also of the 
citizens ... as Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of 
Achaia, wrote ... on this account I accede to you still to have the 
first. ..." 

At this point the inscription is too broken for translation, although 
the beginnings of several lines can be made out. The importance of the 
inscription lies (1) in the fact that it mentions Gallio as proconsul of 
Achaia, and (2) in the reference to the twelfth tribunican year and 
the twenty-sixth imperatorship of Claudius. It can be deduced from 
these, in comparison with other inscriptions of his, that this letter was 
written between January and August of the year 52 a. d. If Gallio was 
then in oflQce, and had been in office long enough to give information to 
Claudius of material importance to the purpose of the emperor's letter 
to the Delphians, Gallio must have arrived in Corinth not later than 
the year 51. According to Dio Cassius, Claudius had decreed that new 
officials should start for their provinces not later than the new moon of 
the month of June. Gallio must, therefore, have arrived in Corinth 
not later than July. 

Paul's stay in Corinth extended over eighteen months (Acts 18: 11), 
and the narrative in Acts implies that a large part of it had passed be- 
fore Gallio went there. Paul must, then, have arrived in Corinth not 
later than the end of the summer of the year 50. As the journey de- 
scribed in Acts 16 must have occupied some months, the council at 
Jerusalem, described in Acts 15, cannot have taken place later than the 
year 49 a. d. In Galatians 2 : 1 Paul says that this visit occurred four- 
teen years after the visit which followed his return from Damascus. 
As the Jews in counting time usually reckoned the two extremes as a 
part of the number, even if a part of them only should really have been 
included, the visit of Paul to Jerusalem, mentioned in Galatians 1: 18, 
must have occurred not later than 36 a. d. nor earlier than 35 a. d. 
As this visit occurred " three " years after his conversion, we find, if 
we make similar allowance for the possibilities of Jewish reckoning, 
that his conversion occurred not later than 34 a. d., and possibly as 
early as 31 a. d. — "Archeology and the Bible," George A. Barton, Ph. 
D,, LL. D., pp. 439, 440. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union. 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. 
Table I.— Patriarchal Period. 







tCJG n 

a u wi 


COHHON CHRONOLOGY. 








Year of the 


Years before 


World. 


Christ. 


^23 


AM. 


BC. 


B-C. 


1 


4004 




1 


4004 




129 


J5875 




930 


3074 




987 


3017 




1056 


2948 




1656 


2348 




1718 


2286 




1757 


2247 




2006 


1998 




2008 


1996 




2083 


1921 




2086 


1918 




2092 


1912 




2107 


1897 




2108 


1896 




2133 


1871 




2144 


1860 




2147 


1857 




2166 


1838 




2183 


1821 




2199 


1805 




2244 


1760 




2265 


1739 




2275 


1729 




2287 


1717 




2285-^ 


1719-16 




2288 


1716 




2288-95 


1716-1709 




2295-2302 


1709-1702 




2298 


1706 




2315 


1689 




2369 


163.% 




2433 


1571 


1380 


2473 


1531 


1.340 


2.512 


1492 


1.300 


2512-13 


1492-91 


1.300 


2513 


April. 1491 


1.300 


2513 


May. 1491 


1.300 


2513 


May. 1491 


1300 


aM3 


.Inlv. 1491 


1300 


2514 


March. 1490 




2514 


April. May. 1490 




2513-2W3 


1491-14S1 




2552 


April, 1452 




2552 


April. 14.52 




2552 


SiimniPr. 1452 




2552 


Sept^mbfir, 14=»2 




25.52 


Aiituron, 1452 




2553 


February. 1451 

Anril, 14M 
Elarly suinmer. 










1451 






1444 






1426 





EVENt. 



Adam and Eve created 

The Fall 

Murder of Abel 

Death of Adam 

Translation of Enoch 

Birth of Noah* 

The Flood 

Founding of the kingdom of BJ^pt. 
Founding of the Chaldean empire... 

Confusion of tongues 

Death of Noah 

Job 

Birth of Abraham at Ur - 

The call of Abraham 

Abraham and Lot move to Canaan... 

The covenant with Abraham 

The destruction of Sodom 

The birth of Isaac. 

The sacrifice of Isaac 

The death of Sarah 

Marriage of Isaac and Rebekah 

Birth of Jacob and Esau 

Death of Abraham 

Selling of the birthright 

Jacob obtains the blessing of Isaac... 
Jacob wrestles with the angel.... 

Joseph sold into Egypt y- 

Death of Isaac :.. 

Joseph in prison in Egypt 

Joseph made ruler of Egypt 

Seven years of plenty 

Seven years of famine 

Jacob comes into Egypt 

Death of Jacob... 

Death of Joseph 

Birth of Moses 

The choice of Moses 

Call of Moses 

The plagues 6f Egypt 

The exodus 

The coming of the manna 

The giving of the law 

The golden calf. 

The tabernacle set up 

The ceremonial law given 

The wanderings in the wilderness... 

New start for Canaan 

Waters from the rock 

Doath of Aaron 

The fiery serpents ., 

Balaam's blessing 

Death of Moses 

Passing over Jordan^ , 

Reading of the law. 

Appointment of dities of refuge 

Death of Joshua. 



PLACE. 



Eden. 



Chaldea. 

Babylonia. 

Arabia. 

Chaldea. 

(t 

Canaan. 

Hebron. 

Sodom. 

Moab. 

Jerusalem. 

Hebron. 
Lahai-roL 
Becrsheba. 



Peniel. 

Dothan, near 

Shechem. 

Hebron. 

Egypt. 



Groshen. 

K 

Egypt. 
(I 

Arabia. 
Egypt. 

Arabia. 
Mt. SinaL 



Desert of Paran. 

Kadesh. 

Meribah. 

Mt. Hor. 

The Arabah. 

Moab. 
Mt. Nebo or 

Pisgah. 

Near Jericho. 

Ebal and 6er- 

izim. 

Mt. Ephraim. 



Credit for tables on pages 97-124 will be found on page 124. 
7 



97 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



Table II.— Peeiod of the Judges. 

The oppression of Chushan-rlshathaim during the last -years of Joshua, 

8 years. 
First judge, Othniel. Rest for 40 years. 
Oppression by the Moabites. 18 years. 
Second judge, Ehud, delivers them. Rest for 80 years. 
Third judge. Sharagar, 

Oppression hj Jabin, king of Canaan, under his general, Sisera, 20 years. 
Deliverance by Deborah and Barak. Rest for 40 years. 
Oppression by the Midianites, 7 years. 
Deliverance by the fifth judge, Gideon. 
Rest under. Gideon, 40 years. 
Ruth. 

Rule of Abimelech, 3 years. 
Judgeship of Tola, 23 years. 
Judgeship of Jair, 22 years. 



1435-1427. 

I4i27-1387. 
1387-1369. 
1369-1289. 

1289-1269. 

1269-1229. 

1229-1222. 

1222. 

1222-1182. 

1222-1182. 

1182-1179. 

1179-1156. 

1156-1134. 



1134-1116. 

1116-1110. 
1110-1103. 
1103-1094. 



the first 20 of Eli's judgeship.) 

East Israel, 

Oppression of the Ammonites, 18 

years. 
Jephthah's judgeship, 6 years. 
Ibzan's judgeship, 7 years. 
Elon's judgeship (in part), 9 

yearsi 



(Of which the last 20 years synchronised with 



West Isbael. 



1134-1094. 
1134-1114. 



Oppression of Philistines, 40 yrs. 
This period includes the last 20 
years of Eli. 
1114-1094. It also includes the first 20 years 

of Samuel. 
1116-1096. And the judgeship of Samson. 



1222-1182. Ruth and Naomi. 

1146. Birth of Samuel. 

1134." Samuel in the temple. 

1114. The death of Eli. 

1116-1075. Samuel judge ; or from the victory of Ebenezer, 

1094-1075. {Ussker, in&-1095.) 

1085. David born. 



/Table III.— The Undivided Monarchy.* 

The dates are those of the Received Chronology. 



B.C. 



1095 

[1075?] 

1056 



1050? 
1048 



1042 
1040 

1023 
1015 
1015 
1012 
1006 

975 



SCRIPTURE HISTORY. 



Saul chosen king 

Samuel dies during his reign. 
Death of Saul arid Jonathan. 

David king at Hebron 

The Ten Tribes resist under Abner. 
Ish-bosheth king at Mabanaim. 

David king over all Israel -| 

He takes Jebus (Jerusalem). 
Removal of the ark. 
Victories over the Philistines, Mo- 
abites and Syrians. 
Revolt of Absalom. 
Death of David. 

Accession of Solomon..... 

Foundation of the temple. 
Dedication of the temple. 

Death of Solomon. 
Revolt of Jeroboam. 



YRS. OP 
REIGN. 



40 



7K 

2 

32^ 
40 
in alL 



40 



SYNCHRONISMS. 



Tyre flourishes under Hiram. 
Syrian kingdoms of Zobah and 
Hamath. 



The 21st (Tanite) dynasty in 
Egypt. 



The 22d (Bubastite) dynasty in 

Egypt. 
Syrian kingdom of DAMASCUS 

founded by Rezon. 



* Kings' names in small capitals. Prophets' names in italics ; which also denote some important events. 



9S 



CHEONOLOGICAL TABLES. 


Table IV.— The DiviioED Kingdoms. 


B.C 


JUDAH. 


YES 


B.C. 


ISBAEU 


YRS 


SYNCHRONISMS. 




{0)ily one Dynasty.) 






(JFtrst Dynasty >i 






975 


i. Rehoboam , 

Shemaiah forbids war. 


17 


975 


i. Jeroboam I ,. 

Idolatry of the calves. 


22 


Shishak (Sheshonk 
L), king of Egypt. 


&70 


Invasion of Shishak. 






Ahijah prophesies. 






957 


ii. Abijah , 


3 




18th year. 

War with Judah. 




Tabrimmon, king of 
Damascus. 




Defeats Jeroboam. 








955 


iii. Asa 


41 


955 


20th year. 

ii. Nadab 






954 


2d year. 
Eeformation. 




954 


2 














{Sec(md Dynasty.) 






953 


3d year. 




953 


iii. Baasha 


24 




941? 


Defeats Zerah the Cush- 

ite. 
Azariah prophesies. 
Alliance with Syria. 
Uanani prophesies. 






Removes from She- 

chem to Tirzah. 
Fortifies Ramah. 
War with Judah. 
Jehu, son of Hanani. 




Zerah = Osorkon I., 
son of Shishak ? 

Ben-hadad I,, king of 
Damascus. 


930 
929 


26th year, 
27th year. 




930 
929 


iv. Elah 


2 
[7 




V. ZiMRI 










Civil war. 


d's.] 












Omri and Tibni... 














(Third Dynasty.) 
vi. Ombi i 






925 


31st year. 




925 


6 

or 

12 

f'm 




Builds Samaria ■ 












930 




918 


38th year. 




918 


vii. Ahab 


22 


Eth-baai, (Ithobal), 




Consults magicians. 






Marries Jezebel, dau. 
of Eth-baal. 




king of Tyre and 
Sidon. 


914 


iv. Jehoshaphat 


25 


914 


4th year. 
Baal-worship. 






Reformation. 




Cities of Judah fortified. 




910? 


Mission of Elijah. 
Three-years famine. 




Ben-hadad II., king of 
Damascus. 




Judges appointed. 




901- 


Successful war with 








Moab and Philistines 




900 


Syria. 








tributary. 












897 


Alliance with Ahab. 
Jehoshaphat- at Ramoth- 

gilead. 
The prophet Jehu. 
17th year. 
Naval enterprise. 




897 


New war with Syria. 
Micaiah, son of Imla. 
Death of Ahab. 

viii. Ahaziah 


2 




Consults Baal-zebul). 




Eliezer, son of Dodavah. 




89G 


Ascent of Elijah. 








18th year. • 






ix. Jehoram 


12 






Defeat of Ammon and 






Mission of Elisha. 








Moab. 






Naaman the Syrian. 






892 


Associates Jehoram. 


8 










889 


V. Jehoram alone. 




889 


8th year. 






886 


" with Ahaziah. 




886 


11th year. 






885 


vi. Ahaziah alone. 
Alliance with Israel. 


1 


885 


I2th year. 
War with Syria. 




Hazael murders and 
succeeds Ben-hadad. 


884 


Slain by Jehu. 




884 


Slain by Jehu. 








Extinction of Ahab's hotise in both kingdoms. 




The Older Dynasty is 
reigiiing in Assyria : 




vii. Athaliah (usurp- 






{Fourth Dynasty.) 








er) 


6 




X. Jehu 


28 


Shalmaneser. 




Murders all the royal 






Slays Jezebel and the 




Jehu's name on the 




house except Joash. 






Baalites. 




"black obelisk," as 




viii. Joash 


40 


878 


7th year. 


• 


tributary to Assyria. 


878 


Jehoiada regent 

Great reformation. 






Worships the golden 
calves. 




Pygmalion at Tyre. 



99 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLED. 


Table IV.— The Divided Kithgdoms— continued. 


B.C. 


JUDAH. 


YRS 


B.C. 


ISRAEL. 


YRS 


SYNCHRONISMS. 


856 


Kepairs of temple fin- 
ished. 






Hazael gains the coun- 
try east of Jordan. 




Carthage founded 143 
years after the tem- 
ple of Solomon ; about 
B.C. 870 (Josephus). 
















23d year. 




856 


xi. Jehoahaz 


17 




850? 


Death of Jehoiada. 
Worship of Baal. 
Zechariah stoned. 
Hazael threatens Jeru- 
salem. 






Hard pressed by Syria. 

[The last two years of 
his reign are the first 
two of his son's.] 






841 


37th vear. 
Death of Joash. 




841 


xii. Jehoash 


16 




839 




839 


Death of Jehoahaz. 




Ben-hadap in., king 




ix. Amaziah 


29 




2d year of Jehoash. 




of Damascus. 




Victory over Edom. 




838 


Death of Elisha. 








Worships gods of Edom. 






Victories over Ben-har 

dad. 
Takes Jerusalem. 






826 


Defeated by Jehoasb. 




826 






825 


15th year. 

Declension and misfor- 
tune during the rest 
of his reign. 

Slain by his servants. 




825 


xiiL Jeroboam II 

Victories over Syria, 

Amnion and Moab. 
Acme of kingdom of 

Israel. 
Jonah prophesies. 


41 




810 


X. UZZIAH 


52 


810 
808? 


27th year. 
Amos and ffosea. 






Zeckariah (as tutor). 


800? 


Joel. 




784 


[Interregnum?] 


11 


776. Era of the Olym- 
piads. 
Greek History begins. 


773 


38th year. 

Great prosperity of Ju- 




773 


xi V. Zach ARI AH 


^S 










ms.] 




dah. 






{Bind of Jehu* sDynasty^^ 






772 
765? 


39th year. 

His sacrilege and lep- 




772 


XV. SHAI/LUH 


m.] 


PUL (Vul-lush, or Iva- 
lush?), the first As- 






rosy. 






{Fifth Dynasty.) 
xvi, Menahem 


10 


syrian king named 
in Scripture. 










Tributary to Assyria. 






761 


50th year. 




761 


xvii. Pekahiah ; 


2 


He takes Damascus. 










(Sixth Dynasty.) 






759 
758 


52dyear. 

xi. JOTHAM 


16 


759 

758 


xviii. Pekah 


20 


753. Era of the foun- 
dation of Hom£. 


2d year. 




747 


10th vear. 
Micah prophesies. 




747 


I2th year. 




747. Later Assyrian 












EMPiREj founded by 


742 


xii. AlHaz 

Worst king of Judah. 


16 


742 


17th yean 

Alliance with Rezin. 




TiGLATH - PILESER ; 

and kingdom of 
Babylon by Nabo- 




Isaiah, chap. vii. 






Invasion of Judah. 




741 


Defeat of Ahaz. 

200,000 captives carried 

to Samaria, and many 

to Damascus. 




741 


Second invasion. 

Jewish captives re- 
leased through the 
prophet 0&6<i. 




NASSAR. 

Era of Nabonassar.. 
Rezin, king of Damas- 


740 


Calls in Tiglath-pileser. 
Syrian altar in temple. 
Sacred vessels sent to 
Assyria. 




740 
739 


Tributary to Assyria, 

Captivity of the 2)4 
tribes east of Jordan, 
and partly of the 
northern Israelites. 

Pekah slain by Ho- 
shea. 

[Second interregnum?] 
{Set^enth Dynasty.) 


9 


cus, cir. 742. 
Syrian kingdom of Da- 
mascus destroyed by 
Tiglath-pileser, 740. 


730 


12th y^ar. 

xiii. Hezekiah.... 




730 


Xix, HOSHEA 


9 


Shalmaneser^ king of 


726 


29 




3d year. 

Hezekiah's messengers 




Assyria. 
He attacks Evxtljevs, 


Religious reformation. 




Great Passover. 






influence Israel. 




king of Tyre. 



100 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 


Table IV.— The Divided KiNGDOJiS—contintied. 


B.C. 


JUDAH. 


YRS 


B.C. 


ISRAEL. 


YRS 


SYNCHRONISMS. 


725 


Revolts from Assyria. 




725 


League with Egypt, 
laud revolt firom As- 




725. SabaCo I. (the So 




Defeats the Philistines. 








of SS.), of the 25th 




Micah and Isaiah con- 






syria. 




dynasty, king of 




tinue to prophesy un- 
der Hezekiah. 




723 
721 

[678 


Imprisoned by Shal- 
inaneser. 

Samaria besieged. 

Samaria taken ; its peo> 
pie carried captive. 

End of the kingdom of 
Israel. 

Colonization of Sama- 
ria by Esar-haddon.] 




Egypt. 

721. Sargon, king of 

Assyria. 
Merodach-baladan, 

king of Babylon. 
War of Sargon with 

Egypt. 


Table V.— Later Kingdom of Judah. 


B.C. 

720 


JUDAtt. 


YRS 


ASSYRIA AND 
BABYLON. 


EGYPT. 


OTHER NATIONS. 


7th year of Heze- 


Sargon besieges 








kiah. 




Tyre. 






715 
713 








SabacoIL? 


Date assigned to 

NUMA POMPILIUS. 


Illness of Hezekiah. 


Enibassv of Mero- 
dach-baladan. 












710 






Sargon takes Ash- 
dod. 
















7(t9 






Expels Merodacb- 
baladan. 
















70? 






SP-NNArHFRTn 






700 


Invasion of Judah 
—submission of 




again expels Me- 
rodach and sets 






do.or 


Hezekiah. 




up Belibus at 






698? 


Second attack and 
destruction of the 




Babylon. Flight 
from , Judah to 








Assyrian army. 




Nineveh. 






698 


xiv. Manasseh. 


55 


Assyrian viceroys 
and much confu- 








Anti- religious re- 










action and idola- 




sion at Babylon 


690. TiRHAKAH. 






tries. 




till 






680 


Carried prisoner to 




680. Esar - had- 






abo't 


Esar - haddon at 




don, becon^ing 








Babylon. 




king of Assyria, 


671 ? DODECHAR- 




6V8 


Colonization of Sa- 




reigns in jDcrson 


CHY. 






maria. 




at Babylon till 


664. PSAMMETI- 






Manasseh's repent- 




about 667. 


CHUS I. 






ance. 


. 


660. ASSHUR-BANI- 

PAL (Sardanapa- 




Scythian invasion 
of W. Asia. 


642 


XV. Amok. 


2 


lus). 






639 


xvi. JosiAH. Great 


31 


Saracus, last king 




633. Median empire 




reformation. 




of Assyria. 




founded by Cyax- 


629 


Jeremiah prophe- 
sies. 








ARES (the Ahasue- 
rus of Dan. 9 : 1). 


625 


15th year. Kahum. 
Jtabakkuk and 




Nabo-polassar 
founds the Babylo- 




Alyattes, king of 
Lydia. 






Zephaniah, 




nian empire, and 






616 






with Cyaxare3 
takes Nineveh. 




Tarquinius Pris- 










cus. 



101 



CHBONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



Table V.— Lateb Kingdom op Jvi>AS^—contimied. 



B.C. 



615 



610 

60S 



605 



604 
603 
802 

597 



593 

588 
587 
586 



582 



561 



JUDAH. 



KiUed in battle 

with Necho. 

xviL Jehoahaz 

xviii. Jekoiakim. 
Jeremiah's prophecy 

of the 70 years 

captivity. 

Mrst Oapiivity, 

Jeremiah's roll 
read. 



TBS 



3m 
11 



Revolts from Bab- 
ylon. 

Jerusalem taken. 
six. Jehoiachin. 
Rebels and is de- 
posed. 



Greai Captivity. 

XX. Zedejkiah. 

JeremiaKs proph- 
ecy against Bab- 
ylon. 

Jerusalem besieged. 

Hope of relief from 

Egypt. 
Jerusalem taken 

and destroyed. 
End of Kingdom of 

Judah, 
Gedaliah, govepi- 

or of the remnant. 

Murdered by Ish- 

mael. 
Johanan carries Jer- 
emiah and others 

into Egjrpt. 
Further captivity 

by Nebuzar-adan. 



[Jehoiachin, at Bab- 
ylon, released.] 



3 m, 



11 



ASSYRIA AND 
BABYI,ON. 



Babylon. 

Nebuchadnezzar 
sent against Ne- 
cho. Takes Je- 
rusalem. Sacred 
vessels carried 'to 
Babylon. 

Jan. 21. Nebuchad- 
nezzar. 

603. Daniel^ etc., at 
Babylon. 



598. Nebuchadnez- 
zar besieges Tyre 
and marches 

against Jerusa- 
lem. 

Resumes siege of 
Tyre, and thence 
returns to Jeru- 
salem. 

Ezekiel carried to 
Babylon with Je- 
hoiachin. 

Ezekiel's vision of 
the temple. 

Marches against 
Jerusalem and 
Egypt, 

Zedekiah carried to 
Babylon, where 
he (fles. 



585. Nebuchadnez- 
zar takes Tyre, 



581. and overruns 
Egypt. ^ 

570. Second inva- 
sion of Egypt. 

569. Madness of 
Nebuchadnezzar ? 

Evil-meeodach. 

559. Nebiglissab. 



EGYPT. 



NEKO(or Phabaoh- 
NECBo) marches 
a^inst Babylo- 
nia. Takes Car- 
chemish. Deposes 
Jehoahaz. De- 
feated by Nei>- 
uchadnezzar at 
Carchemish. 



OTHEE NATIONS. 



Media and Lydia. 

War of Cyaxares 
and Al vattes : 
ended by tne me- 
diation of Nabo- 
polassar. 

Eclipse of Thales: 
probably in B.C. 
610. 



593. PSAMMEfl- 

CHUS II. 

Pharaoh - hophra 
(Apries) takes 
Gaza, but retreats 
before Nebuchad- 
nezzar. 



Apries defeated by 
Nebuchadnezzar. 



569. Amasis. 



Cyaxares aids Neb- 
uchadnezzar 



594. Solon, legislator 
at Athens. 

593. ASTYAGES, 

king of Media. 



The "Seven Wise 
Men" flourish in 
Greece. 



Epoch of the settle- 
ment of the Hel- 
lenic states. 



568. Crcesus, king 
of Lydia. 

560. Epoch of the 
Greek tyrants. 

Pisistratus at 

Athens. 



102 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 


Table V.— Later Kingdom of JvDAn—contimied. 


B.C. 


JUDAH. 


YBS 


BABYLON. 


iEGYPT. 


other NATIONS. 


556 
555 
554 

639 
538 

536 1 






Labobosoabchod. 
Nabonedus. 


Alliance of Babylon. 


55s. Cyrus deposes 
Astyages. 

Egypt and Lydia. 

554. Cyrusconquers 
Lydia. 

Cyrus defeats Na- 
bonedus. 






[Daniel's dream of 
the four beasts.] 

[Daniel's vision, at 
Shushan, of the 
ram and he- 
goat.] 

Trophecy of the 70 
weeks.] 

Return of the Jews. 


[539. Associates Bel- 
shazzar.] 

Surrenders to Cy- 
rus. 

Babylon taken, and 
Belshazzar-slain. 

538. Darius,, the 
Median (proba- 
bly Astyages). 

Daniel governor. 

Cyrus alone. 




Table VI.— The Restored Commonwealth, 


B.C. 


judea. 


PERSIA and EGYPT. 


GREECE. 


ROME. 


536 

535 
534 
529 

625 
522 

521 
520 
515 

486 

474 
465 


Return of the first car- 
avaii under Zerub- 
babel and Jeshua. 

Rebuilding of the 
temple. 

Opposition of Samar- 
itans. 

Letter to the Persian 
king from the ad- 
versaries. 


1st year of Cyrus. 
Edict for the return 
of the Jews. 

Daniel 10-12. 

Cambyses (the Aha- 
suerus of Ezra 4 : 6. 
Artaxerxes in Ez- 
ra 4 : 7). 

Conquest of Egypt. 

The Pseudo-Smer- 
Dis (the Magian 
Gomates). 

Darius I., son of 
Hystaspes, con- 
firms tne edict of 
Cyrus. 

Attacks India and 
European Seythia. 

499. Ionian revolt. 

Xerxes (the Aha- 
suerus of Esther). 

Esther and Mordecai. 
Artaxerxes I. 

LONGIMANUS. 


Thespis first exhib- 
its tragedy. 

527^ Death of Rsis- 
tratus. 

Death of Polycrates 
of Samos. 

514. Hipparchus 
slain. 

510. Hippias ex- 
pelled. 

Bepublic of Athens. 

490. Marathon. 

480. Salamis. 

479. Plataja and 

Mycale. 
476. Cimon. 

466. Battles of the 
Eurymedon. 


Tabquinius Su- 
perbus. 

510. Kings ex- 
pelled. Eepuhlic 
of Rome. 

495. Patricians op- 
. press Plebeians. 

494. Secession to 
the Sacred Mt. 

Tribunes and 
iEdnes of Plebs. 

Wars with Italians. 


The building stopped 
by a royal decree. 

Haggai and Zechariah. 
Building resumed. 
Temple dedicated. 









103 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 


Table VI.— The Restored Commonwealth— con^mwed. 


B.C. 


JUDEA. 


PERSIA AND EGYPT. 


GREECE. 


HOME. 






460. Eevolt of Ina- 


460. Athenians in 








ros in Egypt. 


Egypt. 




458 


Coinmission of Ezra. 








457 


Great reformation. 












454, Egypt con- 


454. Pericles. 


454. Pgtricians 






quered. 




yield to Plebs. 

451. Laws of the 
XII. Tables. 

449. Decemvirs de- 
posed. 

445. Tribuni Mili- 


444 


Commission of Nehe^ 
miak. 




444. Herodotus. 


tum. 


to 


The walls rebuilt. 
Reading of the law. 








433 


Opposition of Sanbal- 
lat. 




431. Peloponnesian 




428 


Second commission of 




war. 




or 423 


Nehemiah 


425. Xerxes II. 

SOGDIANUS. 




426. War with Veil. 


424 




Darius II. Nothus. 
405. Artaxerxes 

II.: Mnemon. 
401. Expedition of 

Cyrus the younger. 


404. End of ditto. 




400 


Malachi. 


400. Xenophon. Re- 




about 


0. T. Canon fixed. 




treat of the Ten 
Thousand. 
399. Death of Soc- 
rates. 


396. Caraillus takes 

Veii. 
390. Gauls take 

Rome. 



104 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



Table VII.— Connection between the Old and New Testaments. 

[ S signifies a sabbatic year.] 



444 

to 

433 

428 

or423 

405 

401 

400 

about 

399 

383 

S369 



330 

323 

320 

312 
285 

283 

280 

264 
$261 

S247 

246 
S226 

223 

222 

S219 

217 



S205 
197 



JUDEA. 



Commission of Ne- 

hemiah. 
The walls rebuilt. 
Second commission 

of Nehemiah. 



Malachi, prophet. 
O. T. Canon fixed. 



Ptolemy takes Je- 
rusalem. 

[Era of the Seleu- 
cidae.] 



Version qf (he Sep- 
iuagint. 



Simon II, H. P. 



Antiochus over- 
runs Palestine. 

Ptolemy recovers 
Palestine, pro- 
fanes the temple, 
but is driven out 
supematurally. 

The Jews submit 
to Antiochus the 
Great. 

Palestine and Ccele- 
Syria conquered 
by Antiochus, and 
confirmed to him 
by the peace with 
Rome. 



PERSIA AND EGYPT. 



.22 



425. Xerxes II. 
424. Darius II. 1 

Nothus. 
Artaxerxes II. 1 

(Mueraon). 
Expedition of Cy- 5 

rus the Younger. 
6 

7 

Artaxerxes dies..47 



Darius III. (Cod- 1 
omanus). 

Murder of Darius.. 

Death of Alexander 
Ptolemy I. Soter, 



2. Ptolemy IL 
Philadelphus 
(with his father). 

Ptolemy II. alone.. 



The historian Ma^ 

netho, fl. 
3. Ptolemy III. 

Euergetes. 
War with Syria, 



4. Ptolemy IV. 
Philopator. 



Victory over Anti- 
ochus. 

Persecutes the Jews 
of Alexandria. 

5, Ptolemy V. Ep- 
iphanes (5 years 
old). 



GREECE, MACEDO- 
NIA AND SYRIA. 

444. Herodotus 

431 to 404. Pelopon^ 
nesian war. 

Xenophon 

Retreat of the 

10,000. 
Death of Socrates .. 
Demosthenes born... 
Accession of Phil- 
, IP II., king of 

Macedonia. 
Murder of Philip... 
Alexander THE 1 

Great, 
Demosthenes de 7 

Corona? 

at Babylon 14 

Contests of the Di- 

adochi. 

1. Seleucus I. Ni- 
cator. 

2. Antiochus I. 
Soter. 

3. Antiochus II. 
Theos. 

Berosus, historian 
of Babylon, fl. 

4. Seleucus II. 

5. Seleucus III. 
Ceraunus. 

8, Antiochus III. 

the Great. 
Quells revolt in 

Media. 
Makes war in 

Egypt. 
Defeat at Raphia... 

The Jews incline 
toward Syria. 

Renews the war 
against Egypt. 



ROME. 



War with Veii. 



Appius Claudius 
censor. 

[Greece. JEtollan 
and Achaean 

Leagues.] 

Gauls and Etrus- 
cans defeated. 

War with Pyrrhus. 

First Punic war. 
[Greece. Growth of 
Achsean League.] 
Hamilcar Barca. 



Second Punic war. 

Battle of Trasi- 
mene. 



War with Philip V. 
ended bythe bat- 
tle of Cynosce- 
pbalse. 



310 

329 
349 
353 
a54 
355 
395 

418 

424 

431 

442 
469 

471 

474 

490 
493 

507 

508 
538 

531 

532 

535 

537 



549 



557 



105 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



Table VII.— Connection between the Old and New Testa- 
ments — continued. 



B.C. 



S191 
181 

175 

166 

Dec. 

138 

137 

64 

63 



59 

58 



54 
52 

S51 
47 
46 

S44 
43 

42 



JUDEA. 



Onias III. deposed. 

1. JxTDAS Macoa- 
B^aeus. 

Rededication of the 
temple. 

Prosperity of Ju- 
dea. 

Kecogniaed by 
Rome. 

Arbitration of 

Pompey, 

He takes Jerusa- 
lem on the Pay of 
Atonement (Sept, 
82) and enters the 
holy of holies. 

Judea subject to 
Home from this 
time. 



Crassus at Jerusa-> 
lem ; plunders the 
temple. 

Cassius enslaves 
30,000 Jews, the 
partisans of Aris- 
tobulus. 



Immunities grant- 
ed to the Jews. • 

Appoints his sons, 
Phasael and Her- 
od, captains of 
Judea and Gal- 
ilee. 

Decree of Csesar for 
refortifying Jeru- 
salem. 

Cassius plunders 
Jerusalem. 

Herod visits Jeru- 
salem. 



Herod defeats An- 
tigonus and 'en- 
ters Jerusalem in 
triumph. 



EGYPT. 



Ptolemy marries 
Cleopatra, the 
daughter of Anti- 
oehus. 

6. Ptolemy VI. 
Philometor (a mi- 
nor), under his 
mother and tu- 
tors. 



Ptolemy Auletes 
expelled by his 
subjects. 



Cleopatra, with 
Ptolemy XII. and 
Ptolemy XIII, 



Antony in Asia. 
Meets Cleopatra at 

Tarsus and goes 

to Egypt, 



SYRIA. 



Defeated at Ther- 
mopylae. 



Demetrius sent to 
Rome. 



8. Antiochus IV. 
Epiphanes. 

Antiochus in Baby- 
lonia. Dies (164). 

Battle of Bethsura. 

Demetrius prisoner 
to the Parthians. 

13. Antiochus VII. 
Sidetes. 

Pompey at Damas- 
cus. 

Receives Jewish 
ambassadors. 

Jiormn governors 
of Syria, 

61. L. Marcius Phil- 
ippus, pr<iprceior. 



Crassus, proeonsul... 



Bibulus, proconsul... 



Julius Csesar. 
Csesar in Syria. 

Q. Csecilius Bassus, 
prcetor. 



C. Cassius ItOngi- 
nus, firoconsul, ar- 
rives in Syria. 

[Note. AU the sub- 
sequent govern- 
ors are legaii.] 



ROME. 



War with Antio- 
chus. 



War in Spain. 



Terence exhibits 
the Andria. 



Numantine war. 



Pompey returns to 
Syria, 

Cicero consul. 

Conspiracy of Cat- 
iline. 

Birth of Augustus, 

61. Triumph of 
Pompey. 

60. Csesar in Spain. 

First Trixi,mvirate. 

Csesar con-aul. 

Csesar in Qaul, 

Cicero banished. 

CsBsar in Britain, 
the second time. 

Clodiua slain bv 
Milo. 



Csesar finishes the 
conquest of Gaul. 

War with Phar.. 
naces, 

C?esar dictator. 

African war. 

The Calendar re- 
formed. 



Death of Caesar. 



War of Mutina. 
Second IHumvirate. 



Battles of Philippi. 



106 



CHEGNOLOGICAL TABLES. 



Table YII.— Connection between the Old and New Testa- 
ments — continued. 



B.C. 



S37 



31 

S30 
27 

18 



JUDEA. 



Herod marches 
against Jerusa- 
lem in the spring. 

Marries Mariamne. 

Isjbined bySesius, 
and takes Jerusa- 
lem on the Day of 
Atonement (Oct. 
5), and on a Sab- 
bath. 

Death of Antigo- 
nus. 

End of the Asmo- 
ncenn line. 

Herod the 
Great 1 

His actual reign 
dates by consular 
years from Jan. 1, 
or by Jewish sa- 
cred years from 
the 1st of Nisan. 

Herod. 7 

Dreadful earth- 
quake in Judea. 

Herod ,....8 

Herod 11 



Herod 20 

EebuildiTig of the 
temple (the va6<; 
or holy place) 
begun about Pfiss- 
over. 

The outer temple 
(iepov) finished. 

Herod 30 



Herod 31 

In disgrace with 
Augustus about 
the Arabian war ; 
henceforth to 
rank as a subject. 



Herod writes to 
Augustus. 

Falls ill and alters 
his will, making 
Herod Antipas 
his successor. 



EGYPT, ARABIA, 
ETC. 



Antony in Italy. 

Eeturns by way of 
Greece, parting 
from Octavia at 
CJorcyra. 



Flight of Cleopiatra 
and Antony from 
Actium to Egypt. 

Egypt reduced to a 
Roman province. 

Egypt is among the 
imperial prov- 
inces. 



SYRIA. 



Antony at Antioch 
at the close of the 
year, where he 
condemns Antig- 
onus to death by 
scourging and be- 
heading. 



Herod razes 

the Trachonite 
stronghold and 
makes war on the 
Arabians. 

Aretas succeeds 
Obodas as king of 
Arabia Petraea. 



L. Calpurkitjs 
BiBULUS, legatiis. 

Q. DiDlus, legatus. 

Syria an imperial 
province, gov- 
erned by a pre^ 
feet, as legatus 
Coesaris. 



Census of Palestine, 
under Saturni- 
nus, perhaps con- 
nected with the 
threat of Augus- 
tus to treat Herod 
as a subject. 

The census was 
ordered in this 
year and carried 
out in the next. 



BOHE. 



Renewal of the tri- 
umvirate for five 
years. 



Battle of Actium 

(Sept. 2). 

Death of Antony 
and Cleopatra. 

The name of Au- 
gustus conferred 
on Octavian, with 
supreme power 
for ten years. 

Supreme power re- 
newed to Augus- 
tus for five years; 
and tribunitian 
power to Agrippa 
for five years. 



Augustus receives 
the supreme pow- 
er for ten years 
more. 

Census of Eoman 
citizens. 

Tiberius goes to 
Germany. 

Augustus at Eorae. 

Preparations for 
absorbing Judea 
into the empire. 



717 



5 end, or 4 beginning, NATIVITY OF JESUS CHRIST, 
according to Sulpicius and most modem authorities. 



717 

723 

724 

727 

736 

743 

746 

747 



749 



107 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



Table VII.— Connection between the Old and New Testa- 
ments — continued. 



Apr. 
1 



JUDEA. 



Heroa 34 

Goes to Jericho. 
Pulling down of 
the eagle, the 
symbol of Roman 
power. 

Hekod dies at 
Jebicho, five days 
ufter the exeeviion 
of Antipater, in his 
70th year. 



EGYPT, ARABIA, 
ETC. 



The census, still in 
progress (if begun 
in B.C. 6), was 
probably one 
cause of the dis- 
turbance at Jeru- 
salem. 



BOHE. 



< 
750 



108 



CHEONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



en 

O 

O 






>- 


TK 


tf 


(3 


o 


8 


en 


^ 






u 


be 

a 






1^ 


> 


til 


Si 


On 




tf} 




P 


rt 


tD 






■^ 


M 




U 


3 


P 


O 


1 


•f? 



S £ 









g 




.2 5^ 4> 

qj <o 50 3 



2 o 
g » 

o 



si's s 8 

5* s «! <" i 
in s>^ ^ 

Sea 2(2 

S5 3=04 
1-5 l-j<J 




^ "^ m ea ©2 -- 

O rt ll> 23 « . 

fl)*3j3 2-= a P 
QQ-<1 > 



«» O *- 



^ — 3 
<» « a> 



So," 



M 



109 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



^ 



^ 



S 



U tn g> 

V a 

« ^ e8 

S? S « 



^.1 



0) CO 

08 



» O »3 S 

"5 OS .* 'S 
EH ^O 



■So ©"=> 
* 3i bet" t^ 

a _ aj fl 2 

•S 2 03 O s 
_ S P « be 

5 "-I 03 S-l !3 

o sS s"S 
>-3 c» 






4> O 

es a 

s o 



a) 173 "^ O -2 "C "O 
2 w OS'S iJ 2 

50^34)1/10^1 



^a 

HP4 



a a 

0) o 

O a 
-o S 

§.s 

C CO 

« a 

J3 O 



<n 1 

3 a 

is 

o o 



a<co 






a a 



£ag 

aj « aj 



to q 
a V 



^ rt e8 

« «* rt 

t^ a^ 

« O c3 



O C4«W 






n3 

is 

CO si 












&. 



a " 



Oh 



n 



a> 



-^ ^ Qc 






^5 






— -u - 

-OS. 



a 



s> 






3 O 

« _ t».a) 
-a5 a.a 



00 p 
3 H 

3 Q 
3 « 

<5 a 

-o •< 

O) 

,a 4i 

a Q 

Whs 



?5a «*'55 



P 

^5 






01 



a> 



2:-"sa 



•< a '^ 

„ •-< t^ «• 

a tH > a fc 

HCO O 3-S 

O 



a rt a 2^ 

o S aj 3 o 



Oi 1 o 

• S *J 

>l 
3. bo 

.^^-^ 

00 be W 
3 cS - q 

O H MM 






CO 



00-3 m tH 



110 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



s rr CO 



tn 




o B 






8«« ® 






'Sill 






^3 



O 
H 

M 

w 

CO 

O 
O 

» 
E-i 



Eh 



k. 

H 






<1 






iJCO 

» of 

^ 03 8 






Oh 

<1 



N CO 
,1 o » 

® S ^ 



: »^ 

: 0.22 

3,2-2 3 
T 20 > 



5§ 



'^« 2 2 

H 



-s 



CO 

••2 «! 2 2 
« a 

o.d.S 5 
H ««J 



Hill 

a5-S^CH 

5'oS'g'S 
Kfc 9«»H s?'"? 






0:§ 
to (4 



m ** flj 



Oh O 



CO 



111 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



P ea«o 



»H IM 






: o o 
: ".« 
: •►< 

: V 
: «a 

: _ "W 

: e o< 

m uv 

Kl O dp 

V ^ C 






f.S 



S.2 



H 



^^ £L *^ ^ 



■ 3 

a 

o 



•na.. 

5'C.2 » 









2 80 



Jj « « 



c S3 s a 



as 



"i 

o 



a® 






a> 



5 2^-c« 



iB . ^'Satial' 

■22 °««2 -^§ 



2 OtOi 



O * 03 e4 

3-2^:2 



« ft 






O © 

o 

9 5 3 2 

HPhOh 






2'S.S 



C * * 

si 
®r^ • • 

03 « 3 3 

-u es rt S 

tfQHH 






80 i 







^.2 3^c^2 



s is 

« '».2 >> . 






es 

a 

OS « 



-J " es I' 
ggoco 



!)!; £3 
<n » >Q 

o . ^ 

O 



& 



o 



es a, 



g^ 



eo 



^ 



85S 



a 


A 


a 


a 


C 


0. 


o. 


acu 


















a 




a 


■sS 




53 


S 


ss 


f] 


.a 


ja 


X9 


u:; 


.0 


^ 


.sx: 


Oh 


CXi 


04 


(^ 


pH 


Oh 


0^ 


Oh Ok 


v4 


S^ 


eo 


•^ 


»o 


«o 


^ 


oe A 


©» 


ot 


« 


c^ 


Ol 


C<I(N 



a 



a 







ft 

5 



c a 



MT3 

•5 ejW 
et 01 O 

owS 

S a> IB 

.2 > «> 
C CM 

« a eS 

'3sa 

>05 




3 
•E 

5 



: 2 ** 
'.•pan 
• ^M a 
<» ^ ^ o 



a 



%=2 s a 

OSES 
"<2c3 ® 






.^■ 






-.0 1 .2 

.2 -fi 03' fc. 

^ ^ ^ ^ 

S'S.2« 



o 



o 



C5 Oc5 



3 


3 


3 


a s 


IH 


tH 


•c 


•cc 


« 


a> 


<D 


U> 4) 










eS 


e« 


<a 


C« C« 


^ 


^ 


> 


» 



CO 



^ §^ 



1^ 



112 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



22 OS'S 
•s§2 . 





H^'a 



•n ji -g 5 » 2 



Its 






O 

H 

CD 
t-l 

w 

Pui 
CO 

O 
O 

» 



n 
<; 

Eh 









^S 






w = ;^ 
: 8 g 



u 
3 

00 

a 

es 



•2 C 






a 

o . s 

.2C 5 

a^ 5 



a 



•M eg 

5a ft 




« •■si! 




•— 00 









fit 



113 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 




§§50 
to® " 






.1 s §■ 

en -^i « "^ 
a S == fl 



5 5* 53 « a 



CO ^^ 






114 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



>* 

P4 
o 

CO 

M 

w 

o 

M 

o 

H 
02 

O 

< 

a 

I 






^1 
Ha 

i-i "^ 



S 



00 o> 
eooo 



gsis 



0) 



OQCQ 



O « Q> 2 ^ 









C8 

a 
e, 

^< a 
a * »H 

P. SB 



n-l -ta 



: "5 



^ 



r. 8j :S 



ft Ht> HHW ^ 



^ 60 

CO M CO 

— ■< ® 



IS 5 c oS 

fe ^ » « a 



^S3S2 









■ 3 3 

31 » 



IB 

I— I 

Ot 3 
« u 



^03 



00 es 



• « O 

^2 J •-» ft 
a OS S '2 «* S 

•J^««S .52 * 

25 O 4> * C5 3 _ 

S.2 'ii«a|§ 



S 



«si 



^ - _ «> 

•3 0) « eS 



r5 <o 






ID 3 

uo 

_0 tars 
n 2 

rf: — .a 

•-9 



no's O 

3 ^ ^ 
.S eS o 5 

5;> 



;5 



S-S2. S 



3-2* 

a a 



a, bo 



CO 



Oi 






c3 03 00 2 o8 

as «* S:a 
pm:^,;^ PL, 



^ 



V^ ..2 



« 9 

1^ 



*-> CO 

•a o 



r3 

a 



ao§ 



S"S 



« 5 e 



® 2 fl ^ 

CS GO ^ ^4^ CQ Cd 

Ago Q 



sa'c 



.i2 

«^^ 3 

S 2*3 *§ 

m 3-" O^. 

«HS ^ CJ.S 



•3^ 

W-2 . 
O m 
<0 0,3 

<M c3 

« a-o 

3 '*«M 

Or2 a 

p a 4) 



PlhS' 



3 S 
^ OS 



(^a-dt: 

» c S"; 

oi 05 S3 
^ f:i w ^ 

«rr.a ^ 






CO 



115 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



t 












tJrfJ 



« 3 c: 



3 a 
; M o B 



. 2.3 
:q to 



o 



eo 



04 "-I .art 






i(§ «' 



CO O oo . 

•2 a« SCSI'S 

.« J3 R ». § a> ■»* 



"'•^..A 



Hi 



-5 » 8 «? 



3 fc; '-' 

04 iJ « 



"5 «• 

S . « 

<» a 

Sv-*^ C4 

S o iM V 

«;s.5 a 



3 «".« 

3a3« 
i2532 



(3<$ 



<i-i a-3 



a 

o « 

O M 

2 ^ 



09 

« 2 

xi a 



<a © 



a^ 



««-S'-9 a 
>»^ 2.aB 

04 <1> S « O 
.1: r* © 0) S 

©t» e.** m 




CO 



•■'2 



•*©'S 
»h'P © 
60 rt © 



© s 

o © 

a.h J 



a .« 



! • to 
S S <3 • 




•a 

.a 



o 



?J 



^ 



w4 o 

a 5* 



a 
.0 



1 



A3 a 
© ♦> 

« © © 

-3 2 "So. 



B'S. 

§1. 



^ o 



a A 

Cm h rt 

►I** -a s 
O.S M a 

w« a 



®i! a 

"a 



t.** © 

•SI'S 

eS O 5 

-as 

** a" 
a^ o4*» 

-§85 8 
.2*2 |i-i.a 



"S 



» © © S H 



^ © C8 



ill ^ ^ .11 .s'si^ 

' 3 "r" 2 »< 

!a2f^.S<S 
a © * M 

04 * a»* o, 

•^ — 'J5 ^ 
43i-.<-w © © 00 
** 3'S jS 3 



is •»- »i 'S 4A 



m 59 S 






«^ M eS 

;^^„ 

a a a 

•« d C4 

(3 h 
04 o, » . 

§a B^ 



a 



I J 



©^ 

■1-1 © 



a 

•c 



C4 08 



®3 



CO 






sgj«r;2 

SS-22g 



I la 






ff 



Sol 

® -. 2 3 a 

AS^S e« cS 



CO 



a 2 . 

« la 

© £'flfi 

a fS 
|« I 



in 



116 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



S 



^1 






AS 4 



o 









i 2 P" S) 

^rt c 5 <u '^ " ts 



s 









« es. 






"2 ~ 



2 2 >.>> 

■».> Win A9 
H 



' . ei 4) S 

: aj= c„ 
: H-e «•-» 

j pq 00 es 



a 



s 



* S c4 2 ■ 

•O S S - 5 00 m 







. bo 

> a 



CO S « 
. !^ OQ S 



i 






el 

.a 
o 



•s 



1 






s -5 



.2 co.Xr 



bC 

■^ ^ '3 ® 5 

®3 C S ^ 



CO 2 
'^ rt 

'9 » 

o « 

s a 

CO ej-;r 
h| I. 

" a) eS 

•SI'S 

« »>.2 
KfiW 



" 2 

CO 






es » «> 

2 «a • 



OS 
•-fa 
•■sB 

OS D 



« 5 2*o « 2 bo 



C § bCoo o C. ~ 

o «<J «-.25 

'w'v- 3 3CdO 

<i> -2 o a> S*** ^ 

•♦* 5 2«3 ^ O M 
fl M -2 -. >« 5? P 






a 

fl 

et 

^ . 
ao «j 

O n 

•^.2 

00 l4 

9 Q, 

S.^ 

09 



s « 

05 (S 

pfl 

isa 

o 

Si: 
p. 






2 .S-gS 

o-2 2SC^ 



^2 






2 *> 

3s^e 



^2 oT 



.a 



a«' 



e4 o _ 

"* O 00 , ?s "" « = 

.:£<; 60 60 60 3 «ja 



•"* 2 00 eS 
^ O 3 S 

6C®cC^ft 

'PS & a 




• •-IS 

(Ss*^ a . 
iS'O s'e 

,2 ™ Q o 

■~^oo cS O 



• eS 
•-OSes 



C-'g 



2 ^^ 
ja fr es 



>fl N<« 
© es ^ 

M 09 .fl 

el.ac.;> 

H 



^ 



*^^ 
^ 






<0 



117 



CHEONOLOGICAL TABLES. 







.9* £ *3 oj „ 



05 DO 

I" 

XH 



c3^ 



a a 
<x> o 

S « 
§§ 

o a 
»^ 






Q 






(13 g 

re a 



<N 







d2^ ^ 

..S «.?« 

^S (3 Sins O' 
' J o O >, es M 



Ph j: 



t5 *^ — ^ 



"Oh 



^§1 
1^1 






S 5 






S « 



o o:3 



2 S-^ O 



q 

o s o 

u oi C4 






^ CO 

o *c 



o a 



CO 

s f^ a 

C3M O 






"3 ».'" 









^ ^ OJW SCO 



^ 









118 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



o 

a'- 
a 



3 « a> 
3 m S3 









bo's oJ 

o © S 
Sua 
^ fl « 



: >^ o 

: > 

; o oo 



c c 5 

■0.2 M 
S o a> 

S "^ 

« 3" 

® cs a 6* 
o o 2 0<-, 



fl 5,0.2 



O eS 



49. 



® o its 

12; d. 



^j3 



fl? 



OS bow 

OP a 

I §.3 

sis « 
pq 



I 

s 

o 

I 

i 

I— I 

O 

»-) 

s 

H 



M 



Ed 



o 



*> eS.S 

O w 00 « 
JS ® O bo 

^•5-3 5 



'^- 



^ i 

^< o *» cl 

^03 



a 
a. 



eg 

bo 

<1 



1 - 
a i 

CO 



g .2 



.4 



.« Sa 
fad ^ 



a ^ 



hi 

iS 05*3 

"53 "35 



■s 



oxi^ 



. 3 <S <0 





•fib-) 



0> 



<1 



119 



CHKONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



S 



% 








•^ .1 § o S 






S eS'3 03 •^4 V 

^ S a S -** » 
O fl S O ci'd 









C3. 

I 



ai 



■1 



. d 



C8.y 

« fa w 
5 « o 

V h3 eS 



I 
i 



H3 fH 






> <^ d on V 

«« m S eJ 

. » 33 * :s 
5 « 

a 



§ w g o'S 'O o 



;= »I| ^ V fH s 

v o a o es-M 






9^ 

.2 x-" « > 5 



Ah S 






CO 3 

w « a? 

^ oa OB 

» » a 












S s d 

*< ^^ «-i S ti 












*-^wiS 



00 



2h (4 Q <o 
Ah a 



CO 

0} CO 

AM 



oTtJi 

a-c 



co" .eS 



4as 



^S2 



525-2 









fes. .1^ ^^ 2 * 










1^ 



120 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



*^ 

OS? 

<V (V O 



S.S 






•a 



eS O O « « 



a 

s. 

. O 60 
to S 

PQ 







^ S fri o 



2 fl 

s » •«. 

ll.il 

i; CO a a ot> 



JziW 



^ S g g a 




Oi ^ H V 



n 



• 0,0) 0*3 

• rs '^ 

• CO ^ jO 




es 

•c 

60 



1^ 






§. 



13 «3a 




o'o.ao,-' 
5 h " aj aS 




t^«s a 
"<^a^| 

CO ik^S © OJ 

Oh (U 



3 o 2 t « 

1 2 S 5 l-H 

5 ««:! . 

: 9 2^ S 
•f? t> _ a 



^24Sh32 



ma 

W o 08 ^ 








© 00 s« a a 






C0 



121 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 




Jh *J ^J +» 

« «-e3 » 



Tt< -, 00 © 



•a© 

of- 










•« bCT3 
5 fl ?) 



o 

so 

M an 



SB'S 



Tj =3 2 © 

8i <M .fit >£ <M 



C3 

a, 
'S 



P. 

.2* 



too 




O 

p. 

0$ 



•2 8J©«S§ 



t^ bO 

. ® 



+3 
CO . O g . 

S'CtJ ©.S g 
0'< H 



CO -k* ^^ 

"-§ 

eScQ 
a* e oi 

OQ 

;3 »j d 
•" S S? o 



(I 

© 
-a 

01 

S 
U 
© 
1-8 
4a 
c« 
m 



.3 ©^o 

© OA c3 

OPkH 



r^ © 










3 a 5 S 
"S S © 5 S «* 

CO^S-oOlS 






.OS 



s aD«w!ji; 



..Jrt © © ,._ 



© 
s C 



EhSk5 
©(^ 
3 ^^ <«^ 



•80 



^•43W, 



© a © B 




St 



s 



£-5.2 ^. 
3 



122 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



2 -O-S 



o 



d s^ 

<n go 

« 2 J. 

Pk o _ 

* -» es 



,2 . « « 53 









o 



2'0 



.^g ^ 



c3 a 









2 c g 

_as5 



',2 

1-5 t. P 






® !ri C3 C *^ o 



« 

a<u 

0-1 



aj 



0) 






•^ss 



o<a 



§ M S 
-4-> a> -u 



03 ■ 



(C 



Tl CO r>. 

^-g.2 P-;5,2 o^« 

T) fl flS ^ O P- «^ 

rt «.gO « « ® •<« 



•<s« 



w 



o 
o 

w 



M 



P3 






X 



<t> 



a. 
fa'"' 



« .i. 



m 






s 


o 


a> 


a; 


in 


S 








t> 




o 






H 






Q) I m I, 

** O (H (» 



5H. 



a ^ o rt? 



3 



til 
§« 

03 V 

in 



.a « r 









: c3 
.2"fl 

^ o 

— o 



2 c4 



bcg 

.1-1 ao 

2 « 

O o 



03 .O 



<N o 






^ 9) 

HPh SS 



> o 

II 
•^1 



GO to V 

o a 



o 

U <V c3 



JO eS 

03 93 

Im ^ 

S fl 

4> o 



PQ S 

<D 



a 

ffl-*' 
« o 

CO »Q 

• .'O 
-- . a O eS 

5^^e-a 

o « S Csj 
bcS ^O 3 



"'-Si 

fl "S 

** 03 P bO 

® S-o^ « 

.fl £. <" -, 
^ ?s fe 2 

>>« 2-2 



So' 

o5 rtS "^ 2S*.2 



o *> 

O) *2ifl m 
w'<*»'0 

2 "3 c 

.fl . « « 

ooti « • 
<u G «i u 
"C 3 03 rt 

.^o >> 

..fl « a „ 

oj bCjs fl 2 



If « 

.^4 03 2 

».• a> S 
M)Ot-S 

<!Oo 









?o 



S 5 ** o3 



2.2 

O lu 

03 'S fl 



n y r*r _ -^ © 



"-.M o « CO § w g a, © 
^*a>-.fl'3'<t3 tcfl 

§ 9«P^c42^o.o>'SB«:5eO 






o 
bo 

fl 

1 
.fl 



PhS 
..fl 

CO 



(D.S 

O <" 



« E a 2r^ I 



1 2 a 2W I 




ao3-<s&j 

l-S 2-» g-ss « 5^ 

^S b f^ o ^rS- CU fl I 




to 3 



123 



CHKONOLOGICAL TABLES. 



< 






?J 






•-9 






»:. w 



O 



eS _ 






.5 o 



o 



.5 <" 



b o 



ft > 



g Ss-^ S 5 o 

S c,'S-2 >>££53 

^ k ooo 



'"-I .So 

4>. 



a o( 



:<J 



a 






M a 



^ CO 



-*a CO a 
M a =5 a 

-s2.2« 

aa«fl 



CJ3 






. a^ 






S So 



"»ai 



f .11' 






9 

O — 
•O . « 

oj «; 2 
cs a »- 

-r o a 






« o 

-a 

a oi <u 

> a> 



o 






.si 
Oh 



• s 



2 ^ -2 



o 
wa 



^ « 



O e9 

fl g 

* .o . 

e-2'^ oo.S 
2 o.i2 a .-s 



.2§ 



a.2 

2 a 
pt-s 



3 fl 

« fl S ►^T3 

2 ^ o a >. .a 

(» GO W -> /^ -4^ 

->j C2'3 a e8 

a-l«-s.si 



« 2 

leg 
«^ 

. n 
to u 

«'S 
■fc> a 

2 o 

^ CO 

^^ 

l2 



> 2 

80 a 



ai^ ^ ° 2 

§rt>a « ^ 
S>»2§-c 

w)fl,2 « 2 
'3 a 00 CO <1 




o 






CQ 



rCl 



! ^ 



124 



CHURCH, HISTORICAL. NOTES ON 125 

Church, Meaning of the Word. — The word "church" (from 
Greek kyriakon, "the Lord's," i. e., "house" or "body") meant in 
original Christian usage either the universal body of Christian believ- 
ers or a local congregation of believers. In the Romance languages the 
idea is expressed by a word from another root (Fr. dglise, Ital. cMesa, 
from Greek ekklesia "the [body] called together" or "called out"). 
The Old Testament had two words to express the idea, ' edhah and kahal 
(Lev. 4:13, 14), both meaning "assembly," the latter implying a 
distinctly religious object. — The New ScJiaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of 
Religious Knowledge, Yol. Ill, art. " Church, The Christian," p. 77. 

Church, Historical Notes on. — In the West, on the other hand, the 
definite organization of the church at large took shape in the papal 
monarchy; the further history of Catholicism and its idea of the church 
is really a history of the Roman primacy. . , . 

The first medieval Christian body which, while holding fast to the 
general Christian faith, abandoned that doctrine of the church sketched 
above [the Roman Catholic view], was the Waldenses. They con 
sidered themselves members of the church of Christ and partakers ot 
his salvation, in spite of their exclusion from organized Christendom, 
recognizing at the same time a " church of Christ " within the organiza- 
tion whose heads were hostile to them. There is not, however, in their 
teaching any clear definition of the nature of the church or any new 
principle in reference to it. 

The first theologian to bring forward a conception of the church 
radically opposed to that which had been developing was Wycliffe; and 
Huss followed him in it. According to him the church is the " totality 
of the predestinated; " there, as in his doctrine of grace, he followed 
Augustine, but took a standpoint contrary as well to Augustine's as to 
that of later Catholicism in his account of the institutions and means 
of grace by which God communicates the blessings of salvation to the 
predestined, excluding from them the polity of priest, bishop, and pope. 
He denied the divine institution both of papal primacy and of the 
episcopate as distinct from the presbyterate, and attributed infallible 
authority to the Scriptures alone. The idea of both Wycliffe and Huss 
was thus not of an actually existing body of united associates, but 
merely the total of predestined Christians who at any time are living 
holy lives, scattered among those who are not predestined, together 
with those who are predestined but not yet converted, and the faithful 
who have passed away. 

Luther defended Wycliffe's definition at the Leipsic Disputation of 
1519, in spite of its condemnation by the Council of Constance. But 
his own idea was that the real nature of the church was defined by the 
words following its mention in the creed — " the communion of saints," 
taking the word "saints" in its Pauline sense. These (although sin 
may still cling to them) are sanctified by God through his word and 
sacraments — sacraments not depending upon an organized, episcopally 
ordained clergy, but committed to the church as a whole; it is their 
faith, called forth by the word of God, which makes them righteous and 
accepted members of Christ and heirs of eternal life. Thus the Lutheran 
and, in general, the Calvinist conception of the church depended from 
the first upon the doctrine of justification by faith. In harmony with 
Luther's teaching, the Augsburg Confession defines the church as " the 
congregation of saints in which the gospel is rightly taught and the 
sacraments are rightly administered." In one sense the church is in- 
visible, since the earthly eye cannot tell who has true faith and in this 
sense is a " saint," but in another it is visible, since it has its being 
here in outward and visible vitar forms, ordained by God, in which 



126 CHURCH OF ROME, DOCTRINES OP 

those who are only " saints " in appearance have an external share. — 
The 'New ScTiaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Yol. Ill, 
art. " Church, The Christian,'" pp. 81-83. 

Church, Idea of, Confirmed. — Two causes contributed to confirm 
the idea of the church: 1. The external history of the church itself, its 
victory over paganism, and its rising power under the protection of the 
state. 2. The victory of Augustinianism over the doctrines of the Pela- 
gians, Manichseans, and Donatists, which in different ways threatened to 
destroy ecclesiastical unity. The last-mentioned puritanic and sepa- 
ratistic system, like that of Novatian in the preceding period, main- 
tained that the church was composed only of saints. In opposition to 
them, following Optatus of Mileve, Augustine asserted the system of 
Catholicism, that the church consists of the sum total of all who are 
baptized, and that the (ideal) sanctity of the church was not impaired 
by the impure elements externally connected with it. The bishops of 
Rome then impressed upon this Catholicism the stamp of the papal 
hierarchy, by already claiming for themselves the primacy of Peter. 
But however different the opinions of the men of those times were 
respecting the seat and nature of the true church, the proposition laid 
down by former theologians, that there is no salvation out of the church, 
was firmly adhered to, and carried out in all its consequences. — "A His- 
tory of Christian Doctrines,'" Br. K. R. Hagenhach, Yol. II, p. 6S. Edin- 
burgh: T. S T. Clark, 1880. 

Church of Rome, Novelty of Some Docteines of. — Novelty of some 
of the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome shown by the dates of 
their admission among the Articles of Faith (" Catechism of Differences 
Between the Church of England and the Church of Rome," Elliot Stock, 
Paternoster Row) : 

1. TransuTjstantiation — first book on the subject, by Paschase 
Radbert, a. d. 831. Strongly opposed at the time by many doc- 
tors of the Western Church; defined and declared an Article 

of Faith in the fourth Council of Lateran - - - 1215 

2. Communion in one kind. Council of Constance - - - 1415 

3. The Seven Sacraments — first mentioned by Peter Lombard, 
A. D. 1140; stated in a decree of instruction for the Arme- 
nians, which has been claimed as a decree of the Council of 
Florence, 1439, but which was drawn up after the Greeks and 
Armenians had left the council, and which runs only in the 
name of Pope Eugenius IV, though he claims for it the sanc- 
tion of the council. Made an Article of the Faith by the 
Council of Trent 1547 

4. Purgatory taught by Pope Gregory, a. d. 600. Made an article 

of Faith in the Council of Florence 1439 

5. Tradition placed on an equal footing with Scripture. Council 

of Trent 1546 

6. Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. Council of Trent 1547 

7. The necessity of the priest's intention to give validity to the 
sacraments was stated in Pope Eugenius's decree to the Arme- 
nians. Made an Article of the Faith by the Council of Trent 1547 

8. The sacrifice of the mass as a true, proper, and propitiatory 
sacrifice. Council of Trent 1562 

9. Invocation of saints made an Article of the Faith. Council 

of Trent 1563 



COMMANDMENTS, DIVISION OP 



127 



10. Adoration of images condemned by Council of Constantinople, 

A. D. 754; approved by Council of Nice, a. d. 787; rejected by 
Council of Frankfort, a. d. 794. Made an Article of the Faith 
by the Council of Trent 

11. Scripture to be interpreted only in accordance with the unani- 
mous consent of the Fathers, Creed of Pope Pius IV 

12, The supremacy of the Pope first promulgated as an Article 
of the Faith by Pope Pius IV in his Creed . . . . 

13, Indulgences. — Restrictions imposed on the practice of issuing 

indulgences by the fourth Council of Lateran, 1215. Council 
of Trent decrees that the use of them is to be retained in the 
church, and anathematizes those who declare them to be 
useless 

14, The immaculate conception made an Article of the Faith 
by Pope Pius IX 

15. The infallibility of the Pope proclaimed by the Vatican Council 



1563 



1564 
1564 



— " The Claims of Rome,'' Samuel Smith, M. P., pp. 99, 100. 
Elliot Stock, 190S. 



1563 

1854 
1870 
London : 



Cominandinents, Division of. — The ten commandments have been 
divided in various ways. The table below exhibits the principal 
differences: 



Commands 



English 
(Reformed) 



Jewish 
(Talmud) 



Massoretic 



Greek 
(Origen) 



Roman and 
Lutheran 



I 


V. 2,3 


2 


3-6 


3 


3-6 


II 


V. 4-6 


3-6 


7 


4-6 


7 


III 


V. 7 


7 


8-11 


7 


8-11 


IV 


V. 8-11 


8-11 


12 


8-11 


12 


V 


V. 12 


12 


13 


12 


13 


VI 


V. 13 


13 


14 


13 


14 


VII 


V. 14 


14 


15 


14 


15 


VIII 


V. 15 


15 


16 


15 


16 


IX 


V. 16 


16 


17- 


16 


17- 


X 


V, 17 


17 


-17 


17 


-17 



The difference between the Roman Catholic and Lutheran is this: 
that the Roman Catholic makes commandment IX protect the wife, 
while the Lutheran makes it protect the house. The Massoretic di- 
visions agree with the Roman Catholic. The English Reformed division 
agrees with the Jewish and Talmudical division in including verse 2, 
but differs in including verse 3 in commandment I instead of in com- 
mandment II. — ''The Companion Bible," part 1, ''The Pentateuch," 
Appendix, p. 34. London: Oxford University Press. 

Conclave. — Strictly a room, or set of rooms, locked with a key; in 
this sense the word is now obsolete in English, though the New English 
Dictionary gives an example of its use so late as 1753. Its present loose 
application to any private or close assembly, especially ecclesiastical, is 
derived from its technical application to the assembly of cardinals met 
for the election of the Pope, [p, 827] . . , 

Each cardinal is accompanied by a clerk or secretary, known for this 
reason as a conclavist, and by one servant only. With the oflBcials of 
the conclave, this makes about two hundred fifty persons who enter the 
conclave and have no further communication with the outer world save 
by means of turning-boxes. . . . Within the conclave, the cardinals, 
alone in the common hall, usually the Sistine Chapel, proceed morning 
and evening to their double vote, the direct vote and the " accessit," 



128 CONCORDAT OF NAPOLEON 

Sometimes these sessions have been very numerous; for example, 
in 1740, Benedict XIV was only elected after 255 scrutinies [ballots]; 
on other occasions, however, and notably in the case of the last few 
popes, a well-defined majority has soon been evident, and there have 
been but few scrutinies. Each vote is immediately counted by three 
scrutators [tellers], appointed in rotation, the most minute precau- 
tions being taken to insure that the voting shall be secret and sincere. 
When one cardinal has at last obtained two thirds of the votes, the 
dean of the cardinals formally asks him whether he accepts his election, 
and what name he wishes to assume. 

As soon as he has accepted, the first " obedience " or " adoration " 
takes place, and immediately after the first cardinal deacon goes to the 
Loggia of St. Peter's and announces the great news to the assembled 
people. The conclave is dissolved; on the following day take place 
the two other " obediences," and the election is ofl&cially announced to 
the various governments. If the Pope be not a bishop (Gregory XVI 
was not), he is then consecrated; and finally, a few days after his 
election, takes place the coronation, from which the pontificate is offi- 
cially dated. The Pope then receives the tiara with the triple crown, the 
sign of his supreme spiritual authority. The ceremony of the coronation 
goes back to the ninth century, and the tiara, in the form of a high 
conical cap, is equally ancient. — The Encyclopedia Britannica, Yol. VI, 
art. " Conclave,'' pp. 827, 829, 11th edition. 

Concordat of Napoleon. — Thus was concluded this famous Con- 
cordat, the principal clauses of which we reproduce: 

" The Government of the Republic acknowledges that the Catholic, 
Apostolic, and Roman religion is the religion of the great majority of 
the French. His Holiness equally acknowledges that this same religion 
has drawn, and still expects at this moment the greatest good and eclat 
from the establishment of the Catholic worship in France, and the par- 
ticular profession which the First Consul of the Republic makes of it. 
Consequently, after this mutual acknowledgment, as well for the good 
of religion as for the maintenance of internal tranquillity, they 
have agreed to this which follows : Article 1. ' The Catholic, Apos- 
tolic, and Roman religion shall be freely exercised in France. Its 
worship shall be public, conformed to the police regulations which 
the Government shall judge necessary for the public tranquillity.' " 

Then follows the article, which announces the new circumscription 
of the dioceses, and demands of the French incumbents a friendly resig- 
nation, if they do not wish that the government of the bishoprics should 
be authoritatively provided for by new incumbents. 

Article 4 was thus worded: 

" The First Consul of the Republic shall nominate, within the three 
months which shall follow the publication of the bull of His Holiness, 
to the archbishoprics and bishoprics of the new circumscription. His 
Holiness will confer the canonical institution, according to the forms 
established with regard to France, before the change of Government." 

Article 6 reduces the political engagements of the new bishops to a 
simple oath of fidelity to the government. It was understood that, if 
in their diocese or elsewhere, there was formed any plot to the preju- 
dice of the state, they should give notice of it to the ' government. 

Article 10 declared that the bishops shall nominate to the cures, but 
that their choice shall fall only on persons approved by the government. 

The last articles stipulate that, for the sake of peace and the 
happy re-establishment of the Catholic religion, His Holiness shall not 
in any way disturb the acquirers of alienated ecclesiastical property; 
that the government shall secure to the bishops and parish priests a 



CONFIRMATION 129 

suitable maintenance; and, in fine, that it shall possess the same rights 
and prerogatives enjoyed by the ancient government. 

A last clause declared that a new convention should be necessary, in 
case that one of the successors of the First Consul should be Protestant. 

Thus the Papacy obtained, despite itself, it is true, the exorbitant 
right of deposing the bishops, but in return, the civil power nominates 
the new incumbents under the reserve of the confirmation of the papal 
bulls. — " The Church and the French Revolution" E. de Pressensey 
D. D., pp» 454, 455. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1869. 

Concordats. — Concordats are now usually understood to be treaties 
between the sovereign of a state and the Pope of Rome, whereby the 
affairs of the Roman Catholic Church in the country concerned receive 
general regulation. — The New Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, Vol. Ill, art. " Concordats and Delimiting Bulls," p. 210. 

Confii'inatioii, Canons on. — Canon I. If any one saith that the 
confirmation of those who have been baptized is an idle ceremony, and 
not rather a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing 
more than a kind of catechism whereby they who were near adolescence 
gave an account of their faith in the face of the church; let him be 
anathema. 

Canon II. If any one saith that they who ascribe any virtue to the 
sacred chrism of confirmation offer an outrage to the Holy Ghost; let 
him be anathema. — ''Dogmatic Canons and Decrees" p. 66. New York: 
The Devin-Adair Company, 1912. 

Confirmation. — Confirmation, a sacrament in which the Holy 
Ghost is given to those already baptized in order to make them strong 
and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ. . . . With reference 
to its effect it is the " Sacrament of the Holy Ghost," the " Sacrament of 
the Seal " (signaculum, sigillum.a-^payls Isphragis}) . From the external 
rite it is known as the " imposition of hands " {iTrieea-is x^'-P'^^ [epithesis 
cheiron'] ) , or as " anointing with chrism " (unctio, chrismatio, xp^o-ixa, 
fi^pov [chrisma, muronl ) . The names at present in use are, for the 
Western Church, conflrmatio, and for the Greek, t6 /xvpov \_to muron']. 

In the Western Church the sacrament is usually administered by 
the bishop. At the beginning of the ceremony there is a general im- 
position of hands, the bishop meantime praying that the Holy Ghost 
may come down upon those who have already been regenerated: " Send 
forth upon them thy sevenfold Spirit, the Holy Paraclete." He then 
anoints the forehead of each with chrism, saying: " I sign thee with 
the sign of the cross and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in 
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Finally 
he gives each a slight blow on the cheek, saying: " Peace be with thee." 
A prayer is added that the Holy Spirit may dwell in the hearts of those 
who have been confirmed, and the rite closes with the bishop's blessing. 

The Eastern Church omits the imposition of hands and the prayer 
at the beginning, and accompanies the anointing with the words : " The 
sign [or seal] of the gift of the Holy Ghost." These several actions 
symbolize the nature and purpose 61 the sacrament: the anointing sig- 
nifies the strength given for the spiritual confiict; the balsam contained 
in the chrism, the fragrance of virtue and the good odor of Christ; the 
sign of the cross on the forehead, the courage to confess Christ before 
all men; the imposition of hands and the blow on the cheek, enrolment 
in the service of Christ, which brings true peace to the soul. — The 
Catholic Encyclopedia, Yol. lY, art. " Confirmation," p. 215. 

9 



130 CONFUCIUS 

Confucianism, Failure of. — Confucius is a sage whose authority 
is based on his wisdom or his power in revealing to persons and states 
the secret of a happy life; but death, whether his own or another's, is 
to him too great a mystery to be understood; the wise man can only sit 
dumb before it. — " The Philosophy of the Christian Religion," Andrew 
Martin FairMirn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., p. 482. New York: George H. 
Doran Company, copyright 1902. 

Confucius, Morality of. — Confucius sometimes soared to, the high- 
est morality known to the pagan world. Chung-kung asked about perfect 
virtue. The master said: " It is when you go abroad, to behave to 
every one as if you were receiving a great guest, to have no murmuring 
against you in the country and family, and not to do to others as you 
would not wish done to yourself. . . . The superior man has neither 
anxiety nor fear. Let him never fail reverentially to order his own con- 
duct, and let him be respectful to others and observant of propriety; 
then all within the four seas will be brothers. . . . Hold faithfulness 
and sincerity as first principles, and be moving continually to what is 
right." Fan-Chi asked about benevolence; the master said": " It is to 
love all men." Another asked about friendship. Confucius replied: 
" Faithfully admonish your friend, and kindly try to lead him. If you 
find him impracticable, stop. Do not disgrace yourself." This saying 
reminds us of that of our great Master : " Cast not your pearls before 
swine." There is no greater folly than in making oneself disagreeable 
without any probability of reformation. Some one asked : " What do 
you say about the treatment of injuries?" The master answered: 
" Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kind- 
ness." — " Beacon Lights of History,'' John Lord, LL. D., ' Vol. I, pp. 
162, 163. New York: James Clarke d Co., copyright 1888. 

Confucius, Writings of. — Confucius left behind voluminous writ- 
ings, of which his Analects, his book of Poetry, his book of History, and 
his Rules of Propriety are the most important. It is these which are 
now taught, and have been taught for two thousand years, in the 
schools and colleges of China. The Chinese think that no man so 
great and perfect as he has ever lived. His writings are held In the 
same veneration that Christians attach to their own sacred literature. 

There is this one fundamental difference between the authors of 
the Bible and the Chinese sage, — that he did not like to talk of spiritual 
things; indeed, of them he was ignorant, professing no interest in re- 
lation to the working out of abstruse questions, either of philosophy 
or theology. He had no taste or capacity for such inquiries. Hence, 
he did not aspire to throw any new light on the great problems of human 
condition and destiny; nor did he speculate, like the Ionian philoso- 
phers, on the creation or end of things. He was not troubled about 
the origin or destiny of man. He meddled neither with physics nor 
metaphysics, but he earnestly and consistently strove to bring to light 
and to enforce those principles which had made remote generations 
wise and virtuous. He confined his attention to outward phenomena, — 
to the world of sense and matter; to forms, precedents, ceremonies, 
proprieties, rules of conduct, filial duties, and duties to the state; 
enjoining temperance, honesty, and sincerity as the cardinal and 
fundamental laws of private and national prosperity. He was no 
prophet of wralh, though living in a corrupt age. He utters no 
anathemas on princes, and no woes on peoples. Nor does he glow 
with exalted hopes of a millennium of bliss, or of the beatitudes of a 
future state. He was not stern and indignant like Elijah, but more 
like the courtier and counselor Elisha. He was a man of the world, 



COUNCILS 131 

and all his teachings have reference to respectability in the world's 
regard. He doubted more than he believed. 

And yet in many of his sayings Confucius rises to an exalted 
height, considering his age and circumstances. Some of them remind 
us of some of the best proverbs of Solomon. In general, we should say 
that to his mind filial piety and fraternal submission were the foun- 
dation of all virtuous practices, and absolute obedience to rulers the 
primal principle of government. — ■ " Beacon Lights of History,'' John 
Lord, LL. D., Vol. I, pp. 156, 157. Netv York: James Clarke & Co., copy- 
right 1888. 

Councils, Reasons for Calling. — Six grounds for the convocation 
of great councils, particularly ecumenical councils, are generally enu- 
merated : 

1. When a dangerous heresy or schism has arisen. 

2. When two popes oppose each other, and it is doubtful which is 
the true one. 

3. When the question is, whether to decide upon some great and 
universal undertaking against the enemies of the Christian name. 

4. When the Pope is suspected of heresy or of other serious faults. 

5. When the cardinals have been unable or unwilling to undertake 
the election of a pope. 

6. When it is a question of the reformation of the church, in its 
head and members. — "A History of the Church Councils," Rev. Charles 
Joseph Hefele, D. D. (R. C.J, to A. D. 325 (first volume), p. 5. Edin- 
l)urgh: T. d T. Clark, 1872. 

Councils, Confirmation of Decrees of. — The decrees of the ancient 
ecumenical councils were confirmed by the emperors and by the popes; 
those of the later councils by the popes alone. On the subject of the 
confirmation of the emperors we have the following facts: 

1. Constantine the Great solemnly confirmed the Nicene Creed im- 
mediately after it had been drawn up by the council, and he threatened 
such as would not subscribe it with exile. At the conclusion of the 
synod he raised all the decrees of the assembly to the position of laws 
of the empire; declared them to be divinely inspired; and in several 
edicts still partially extant, he required that they should be most faith- 
fully observed by all his subjects. 

2. The second ecumenical council expressly asked for the confirma- 
tion of the emperor Theodosius the Great, and he responded to the 
wishes of the assembly by an edict dated the 30th July, 381. 

3. The case of the third ecumenical council, which was held at 
Bphesus, was peculiar. The emperor Theodosius II had first been on 
the heretical side, but he was brought to acknowledge by degrees that 
the orthodox part of the bishops assembled at Ephesus formed the true 
synod. However, he did not in a general way give his confirmation to 
the decrees of the council, because he would not approve of the deposi- 
tion and exclusion pronounced by the council against the bishops of 
the party of Antioch. Subsequently, however, when Cyril and John of 
Antioch were reconciled, and when the party of Antioch itself had 
acknowledged the Council of Ephesus, the emperor sanctioned this 
reconciliation by a special decree, threatened all who should disturb 
the peace; and by exiling Nestorius, and by commanding all the Nes- 
torian writings to be burnt, he confirmed the principal decision given 
by the Council of Ephesus. 

4. The emperor Marcian consented to the doctrinal decrees of the 
fourth ecumenical council, held at Chalcedon, by publishing four edicts 
on the 7th February, 13th March, 6th and 28th July, 452, 



13 2 COUNCILS 

5. The close relations existing between the fifth ecumenical coun- 
cil and the emperor Justinian are well known. This council merely 
carried out and sanctioned what the emperor had before thought neces- 
sary and decided; and it bowed so obsequiously to his wishes that Pope 
Vigilius would have nothing to do with it. The emperor Justinian 

.sanctioned the decrees pronounced by the council, by sending an official 
to the seventh session, and he afterward used every endeavor to obtain 
the approbation of Pope Vigilius for this council, 

6. The emperor Constantine Pogonatus confirmed the decrees of the 
sixth council, first by signing them (ultimo loco, as we have seen) ; but 
he sanctioned them also by a very long edict, which Hardouin has 
preserved. 

7. In the last session of the seventh ecumenical council, the em- 
press Irene, with her son, signed the decrees made in the preceding 
sessions, and thus gave them the imperial sanction. It is not known 
whether she afterward promulgated an especial decree to the same 
effect. 

8. The emperor Basil the Macedonian and his sons signed the acts 
of the eighth ecumenical council. His signature followed that of the 
patriarchs, and preceded that of the other bishops. In 870 he also pub- 
lished an especial edict, making known his approval of the decrees of 
the council. 

The papal confirmation of all these eight first ecumenical councils 
is not so clear and distinct. — "A History of the Church Councils," Rev. 
Charles Joseph Hefele, D. D. (R. C), to A. D. 325 (first volume), pp. 42- 
44. Ectin1)urgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872. 

Coimcils, Relation of the Pope to. — We see from these consider- 
ations^ of what value the sanction of the Pope is to the decrees of a 
council. Until the Pope has sanctioned these decrees, the assembly of 
bishops which formed them cannot pretend to the authority belonging 
to an ecumenical council, however great a number of bishops may com- 
pose it; for there cannot be an ecumenical council without union with 
the Pope. 

This sanction of the Pope is also necessary for insuring infalli- 
bility to the decisions of the council. According to Catholic doctrine, 
this prerogative can be claimed only for the decisions of ecumenical 
councils, and only for their decisions in re'bus fldei et morum [in mat- 
ters of faith and morals], not for purely disciplinary decrees. — Id., 
p. 52. 

Coimcils, List of the Ecumenical. — Here, then, we offer a cor 
rected table of the ecumenical councils: 

1. That of Nicaea in 325. 

2. The first of Constantinople in 381. 

3. That of Ephesus in 431. 

4. That of Chalcedon in 451. 

5. The second of Constantinople in 553. 

6. The third of Constantinople in 680. 

7. The second of Nicasa in 787. 

8. The fourth of Constantinople in 869. 

9. The first of Lateran in 1123. 

10. The second of. Lateran in 1139. 

11. The third of Lateran in 1179. 

12. The fourth of Lateran in 1215. 

13. The first of Lyons in 1245. 

14. The second of Lyons in 1274. 

15. That of Vienne in 1311. 



COUNCILS 133 

16. The Council of Constance, from 1414 to 1418; that is to say: 
(a) The latter sessions presided over by Martin V (sessions 41-45 in- 
clusive) ; (h) in the former sessions all the decrees sanctioned by Pope 
Martin V, that is, those concerning the faith, and which were given 
conciliariter. 

17. The Council of Basle, from the year 1431; that is to say: (a) 
The twenty-five first sessions, until the translation of the council to 
Ferrara by Eugene IV; Cb) in these twenty-five sessions the decrees 
concerning the extinction of heresy, the pacification of Christendom, 
and the general reformation of the church in its head and in its mem- 
bers, and which, besides, do not strike at the authority of the apostolic 
chair; in a word, those decrees which were afterward sanctioned by 
Pope Eugene IV. 

17&. The assemblies held at Ferrara and at Florence (1438-42) can- 
not be considered as forming a separate ecumenical council. They were 
merely the continuation of the Council of Basle, v/hich was transferred 
to Ferrara by Eugene IV on the 8th January, 1438, and from thence to 
Florence in January, 1439. 

18. The fifth of Lateran, 1512-17. 

19. The Council of Trent, 1545-63. — "A History of the Church Coun- 
cils," Rev. Charles Joseph Hefele, D. D. (R. C.J, to A. D. S£5 (first vol- 
ume), pp. 63, 64. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872. 

The list of ecumenical councils as accepted by the Roman Catholic 
Church is as follows: 1. Nicaea I, 325; 2. Constantinople I, 381; 3. Ephe- 
sus, 431; 4, Chalcedon, 451; 5. Constantinople II, 553; 6. Constantinople 
III (first Trullan), 680-681; 7. Nicaea II, 787; 8. Constantinople IV, 
869; 9. Lateran I, 1123; 10. Lateran II, 1139; 11. Lateran III, 1179; 
12. Lateran IV, 1215; 13. Lyons I, 1245; 14. Lyons II, 1274; 15. Vienne, 
1311-12; 16. Constance, 1414-18; 17. Basel-Ferrara-Florence, 1431-42; 18. 
Lateran V, 1512-17; 19. Trent, 1545-63; 20. Vatican, 1869-70. The first 
seven of these are accepted by the Greeks, the others rejected; they also 
accept the second Trullan Council or Quinisextum, 692 (rejected by the 
West), considering it a continuation of the first Trullan or third Con- 
stantinople. The eighth general council of the Greeks was held in Con- 
stantinople in 879 and rejected by the Latins. — The New Schaft-Herzog 
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. Ill, art. " Councils and 
Synods," p. 281, footnote. 

Councils, Present Constitution of. — The principles now accepted 
are that these assemblies may only be called by the Pope and presided 
over by him or his delegates; that their membership is confined to the 
cardinals, bishops, vicars apostolic, generals of religious orders, and 
such dignitaries, to the exclusion of the laity; that the subjects dis- 
cussed must be laid before them by the Pope, and their decisions con- 
firmed by him. They are thus nothing more than assemblies of advisers 
about the Pope, with no independent power of their own. — Id., p. 282. 

Councils, Relation of Council of Trent to Protestantism. — The 
work of the Council of Trent completed the preparations of the Roman 
Church for the great fight with Protestantism. Armed at all points, she 
took the field against her foe, under the command too of a peerless cap- 
tain. Pope Pius IV did not long outlive the assembly which he had so 
vigorously wielded, and in 1565 made way for Pius V (Michael Ghislieri), 
the perfect and pattern pontiff. In him the Roman Church enjoyed a 
fervent, vigilant, devoted, laborious, self-denying, and consummate head; 
in him the Reformation encountered a watchful, unweary, implacable, 
and merciless enemy, [p. 245] . . ., 



13 4 COUNCILS, VATICAN 

Amid the multitude of pontifical cares and duties, all diligently 
attended to and exactly fulfilled, he gave closest heed to the supreme 
care and duty of extirpating heretics, and as the head of the Roman 
Church outdid his deeds and outnumbered his trophies as the head of 
the Holy Office. He conducted the operations of the Roman Catholic 
reaction with great skill, astonishing energy, and much success. He 
carried the war against Protestantism into every land and pressed into 
the service every mode of assault, every form of seduction and violence; 
teaching, preaching, imprisonment and torture, fire and sword, Jesuits, 
inquisitors, and soldiers. — " The Papal Drama,'" Thomas H. Gill, pp. 245, 
246. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1866. 

Councils, Vatican, Lord Acton on. — The Council of Trent im- 
pressed on the church the stamp of an intolerant age, and perpetuated 
by its decrees the spirit of an austere immorality. The ideas embodied 
in the Roman Inquisition became characteristic of a system which 
obeyed expediency by submitting to indefinite modification, but under- 
went no change of principle. Three centuries have so changed the 
world that the maxims with which the church resisted the Reformation 
have become her weakness and her reproach, and that which arrested 
her decline now arrests her progress. To break effectually with that 
tradition and eradicate its influence, nothing less is required than an 
authority equal to that by which it was imposed. The Vatican Council 
was the first sufficient occasion which Catholicism had enjoyed to re- 
form, remodel, and adapt the work of Trent. This idea was present 
among the motives which caused it to be summoned. — " The History of 
Freedom," John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (R. C), pp. 493, 494. 
London: Macmiltan & Co., 1909. 

Before the council had been assembled a fortnight, a store of dis- 
content had accumulated which it would have been easy to avoid. Every 
act of the Pope, the bull Multiplices, the declaration of censures, the 
text of the proposed decree, even the announcement that the council 
should be dissolved in case of his death, had seemed an injury or an 
insult to the episcopate. These measures undid the favorable effect of 
the caution with which the bishops had been received. They did what 
the dislike of infallibility alone would not have done. They broke the 
spell of veneration for Pius IX which fascinated the Catholic episcopate. 
The jealousy with which he guarded his prerogative in the appointment 
of officers, and of the great commission, the pressure during the elections, 
the prohibition of national meetings, the refusal to hold the debates in 
a hall where they could be heard, irritated and alarmed many bishops. 
They suspected that they had been summoned for the very purpose they 
had indignantly denied, — to make the Papacy more absolute by abdicat- 
ing in favor of the official prelature of Rome. Confidence gave way to 
a great despondency, and a state of feeling was aroused which prepared 
the way for actual opposition when the time should come. — Id., pp. 
531, 532. 

When the observations on infallibility which the bishops had sent 
in to the commission appeared in print, it seemed that the minority had 
burnt their ships. They affirmed that the dogma would put an end to 
the conversion of Protestants, that it would drive devout men out of the 
church and make Catholicism indefensible in controversy, that it would 
give governments apparent reason to doubt the fidelity of Catholics, and 
would give new authority to the theory of persecution and of the 
deposing power. They testified that it was unknown in many parts of 
the church, and was denied by the Fathers, so that neither perpetuity 



COUNCILS, VATICAN 13 5 

nor universality could be pleaded in^its favor; and they declared it an 
absurd contradiction, founded on ignoble deceit, and incapable of being 
made an article of faith by pope or council. One bishop protested that 
he would die rather than proclaim it. — " The History of Freedom,'' John 
Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (R. CJ, pp/545, 546. London: Macmillan 
& Co., 1909. 

The debate on the several paragraphs lasted till the beginning of 
July, and the decree passed at length with eighty-eight dissentient votes. 
It was made known that the infallibility of the Pope would be pro- 
mulgated in solemn session on the 18th, and that all who were present 
would be required to sign an act of submission. ... It was resolved 
by a small majority that the opposition should renew its negative 
vote in writing, and should leave Rome in a body before the session. 
Some of the most conscientious and resolute adversaries of the dogma 
advised this course. Looking to the immediate future, they were per- 
suaded that an irresistible reaction was at hand, and that the decrees 
of the Vatican Council would fade away and be dissolved by a power 
mightier than the episcopate and a process less perilous than schism. 
Their disbelief in the validity of its work was so profound that they 
were convinced that it would perish without violence, and they resolved 
to spare the Pope and themselves the indignity of a rupture. Their 
last manifesto. La derniere Heure, is an appeal for patience, an ex- 
hortation to rely on the guiding, healing hand of God. They deemed that 
they had assigned the course which was to save the church, by teaching 
the Catholics to reject a council which was neither legitimate in con- 
stitution, free in action, nor unanimous in doctrine, but to observe 
moderation in contesting an authority over which great catastrophes 
impend. — Id., pp. 549, 550. 

Councils, Vatican, a Mark of the Age. — Few events of the nine- 
teenth century stand out in bolder relief, and many will be forgotten 
when the Vatican Council will be remembered. It will mark this age 
as the Council of Nicsea and the Council of Trent now mark in history 
the fourth and the sixteenth centuries. — " The True Story of the Vatican 
Council," Henry Edicard Cardinal Manning (R. C), p. 2. London: Burns 
and Oates. 

Councils, Vatican, a Remedy for Evils. — We have entered into a 
third period. The church began, not with kings, but with the peoples of 
the world, and to the peoples, it may be, the church will once more re- 
turn. The princes and governments and legislatures of the world were 
everywhere against it at its outset: they are so again. But the hostility 
of the nineteenth century is keener than the hostility of the first. Then 
the world had never believed in Christianity; now it is falling from it. 
But the church is the same, and can renew its relations with what- 
soever forms of civil life the world is pleased to fashion for itself. If, 
as political foresight has predicted, all nations are on their way to de- 
mocracy, the church will know how to meet this new and strange 
aspect of the world. The high policy of wisdom by which the pontiffs 
held together the dynasties of the Middle Age[s] will know how to hold 
together the peoples who still believe. Such was the world on which 
Pius the Ninth was looking out when he conceived the thought of an 
ecumenical council. He saw the world which was once all Catholic 
tossed and harassed by the revolt of its intellect against the revelation 
of God, and of its will against his law; by the revolt of civil society 
against the sovereignty of God; and by the anti-Christian spirit which is 
driving on princes and governments toward anti-Christian revolutions. 



136 COUNCLLS, VATICAN 

He to whom, in the words of St. John Chrysostom, the whole world was 
committed, saw in the Council of the Vatican the only adequate remedy 
for the world-wide evils of the nineteenth century. — " The True Story of 
the Vatican Council,'' Henry Edward Cardinal Manning (R. C), pp. 36, 37. 
London: Burns and Oates. 

Councils, Vatican, Summary of Its Doings. — The chief impor- 
tance of the Council of the Vatican lies in its decree on papal supremacy 
and infallihility. It settled the internal dissensions between ultra- 
montanism and Gallicanism, which struck at the root of the fundamental 
principle of authority; it destroyed the independence of the Episcopate, 
and made it a tool of the primacy; it crushed liberal Catholicism; it 
completed the system of papal absolutism; it raised the hitherto dis- 
puted opinion of papal infallibility to the dignity of a binding article 
of faith, which no Catholic can deny without loss of salvation. The 
Pope may now say not only, " I am the tradition " (La tradizione son' 
io), but also, "I am the church" (Ueglise c'est moiJI — ^^ Rome and the 
Newest Fashions in Religion," William E. Gladstone, p. 65. New York: 
Harper & Brothers, 1875. 

Councils, Vatican, Submission to. Explained. — The following con- 
siderations sufficiently explain the fact of submission: 

1. Many of the dissenting bishops were professedly anti-infallibilists, 
not from principle, but only from subordinate considerations of ex- 
pediency, because they apprehended that the definition would provoke 
the hostility of secular governments, and inflict great injury on Catholic 
interests, especially in Protestant countries. Events have since proved 
that their apprehension was well founded. 

2. All Roman bishops are under an oath of allegiance to the Pope, 
which binds them " to preserve, defend, increase, and advance the rights. 
honors, privileges, and authority of the Holy Roman Church, of our 
lord the Pope, and his successors." 

3. The minority bishops defended episcopal infallibility against 
Papal infallibility. They claimed for themselves what they denied to 
the Pope. Admitting the infallibility of an ecumenical council, and for- 
feiting by their voluntary absence on the day of voting the right of 
their protest, they must either on their own theory accept the decision 
of the council, or give up their theory, cease to be Roman Catholics, and 
run the risk of a new schism. 

At the same time this submission is an instructive lesson of the 
fearful spiritual despotism of the Papacy, which overrules the stubborn 
facts of history and the sacred claims of individual conscience. For the 
facts so clearly and forcibly brought out before and during the council 
by such men as Kenrick, Hefele, Rauscher, Maret, Schwarzenberg, and 
Dupanloup, have not changed, and can never be undone. On the one 
hand we find the results of a life-long, conscientious, and thorough 
study of the most learned divines of the Roman Church, on the other 
ignorance, prejudice, perversion, and defiance of Scripture and tradi- 
tion; on the one hand we have history shaping theology, on the other 
theology ignoring or changing history; on the one hand the just exercise 
of reason, on the other blind submission, which destroys reason and 
conscience. — Id., p. 81. 

Councils, Vatican, a Triumph for the Jesuits. — In the strife for 
the Pope's temporal dominion the Jesuits were most zealous; and they 
were busy in the preparation and in the defense of the Syllabus. They 
were connected with every measure for which the Pope most cared; and 
their divines became the oracles of the Roman congregations. The 



COUNCILS, VATICAN 137 

papal infallibility had been always their favorite doctrine. Its adop- 
tion by the council promised to give to their theology official warrant, 
and to their order the supremacy in the church. They were now in 
power; and they snatched their opportunity when the council was con- 
voked. — " The History of Freedom,'' John Emerich Edward Dalherg- 
Acton (R. C), p. 498. London: Macmillan & Co., 1909. 

Councils, Vatican, Canons Conceening the Church of Christ Pro- 
posed By Pope Pius IX, but Not Adopted. — The following is an abridged 
view of the substance and effect of the twenty-one canons (Documenta, 
ii, p. 101) : 

1. If any man say that the religion of Christ is not made manifest 
in a society, let him be anathema. 

2, If any man say that the church has no certain and immutable 
form, let him be anathema. 

8. If any man say that she is not external and visible, let him be 
anathenia. 

4. If any man say that she is not one body, let him be anathema. 

5. If any man say that she is not a society necessary to the ob* 
taining of eternal salvation, let him be anathema. 

6. If any man say that her intolerance in the condemnation of all 
sects is not divinely commanded, or that such sects ought to be toler- 
ated, let him be anathema. 

7. If any man say that she may err in doctrine, depart from her 
original institution, or cease to exist, let him be anathema. 

8. If any man say that she is not a final dispensation, let him be 
anathema, 

9. If any man say that her infallibility extends only to things 
contained in revelation, let him be anathema. 

10. If any man say that she is not a perfect society, but an associa- 
tion (collegium) which may be subjected to secular rule, let him be 
anathema. 

11. If any man say that bishops have not by divine appointment 
a proper power of ruling, which they are freely to exercise, let him be 
anathema. 

12. If any man say that the power of the church lies only in 
counsel or persuasion, but not in legal commands, in coercion and 
compulsion by external jurisdiction, and in wholesome pains, let him 
be anathema. 

13. If any man say that the true church, out of which none can 
be saved, is any other than the Roman, let him be anathema. 

14. If any man say that Peter was not prince of the apostles and 
head of the whole church, or that he received only a primacy of honor 
and not of jurisdiction, let him be anathema. 

15. If any man say that he had not successors, or that the Roman 
Pontiff was not his successor in the primacy, let him be anathema. 

16. If any man say that the Roman Pontiff has only a right of 
supervision or direction over the universal church, and not a full and 
supreme power of jurisdiction, or that his power over the churches, 
taken separately, is not immediate and ordinary, let him be anathema. 

17. If any man say that the poM^er of the church is not compatible 
with that of supreme civil power, let him be anathema. 

18. If any man say that the power necessary to rule civil society 
is not from God, let him be anathema. 

19. If any man say that all rights among men and all authority are 
derived from the state, let him be anathema. 

20. If any man say that the supreme rule of conscience lies in 
the law of the state, or in public opinion, and that the judicial power 



138 COUNCILS, VATICAN 

of the church does not extend to pronouncing them legitimate or ille- 
gitimate, or that by civil law that can become legitimate which by 
divine law is illegitimate, let him be anathema. 

21. If any man say that the laws of the church have not binding 
force unless confirmed by the civil power, and that it is competent to 
the civil power to judge or decree in causes where religion is impli- 
cated, let him be anathema. 

The logical succession of ideas was manifest. The first five canons 
established the principle that the Christian church is a society which 
has form, visibility, unity, and is necessary to salvation. The next 
series pronounced this church to be intolerant (6), infallible (7), 
final as a dispensation (8), infallible in matters no^ contained in reve- 
lation (9), a perfect society not subject to the civil power (10), rul- 
ing by bishops (11), and possessing legislative, judicial, and compul- 
sory power (12), because none can be saved out of her (13). The 
fourteenth canon, and the two following ones, establish the unlimited 
dominion of the Pope over all bishops; while the eleventh establishes 
the ruling power of bishops, but leaves the sphere of it undefined, not 
even saying that it is over the church. And this undefined ruling 
power of bishops is placed between the independence of the church in 
relation to the civil power on the one hand, and her own compulsory 
power and the absolute authority of the Pope over the bishops on 
the other. 

The seventeenth canon affirms that the pow«r of the church is 
compatible with civil authority, — which without a doubt it is, so long 
as the civil authority abides within the limits traced for it by the 
church. That authority may also, in the sense of Rome, be, in its 
order, supreme, — that is, not subject to any other civil authority, but 
always subject to the Pope, who is an authority of a higher order than 
the civil. 

The eighteenth canon bases all civil authority on divine right. This 
is capable of more than one interpretation. First, it may mean that 
all existing authority is to be viewed as from God, whether it origi- 
nated in conquest, prescription, or vote; or, secondly, it may mean 
that no civil authority is legitimate which has not divine sanction; and 
as among the baptized that sanction cannot be received except through 
the Pope, the consequence of such an interpretation would be obvious. 

The nineteenth canon deliberately confounds natural and legal 
rights, as if the laws that create and protect legal rights were not them- 
selves the outgrowth of natural rights. In the same way it confounds 
natural authority and legal authority. 

The twentieth seems to put civil law and mere public opinion on the 
same level, and places both one and the other under the judgment of 
the church, and that as to their legitimacy or illegitimacy. " Judg- 
ment," of course, does not mean criticism, instruction, remonstrance, 
or warning. It means what the word would mean anywhere, in such 
solemn legislative language, namely, judicial sentence. " Legitimacy " 
or "illegitimacy," again, does not mean wisdom or folly, goodness 
or badness, but means what it says. Divine law includes church law, 
and what it forbids no civil law can warrant. Therefore the power 
claimed in this fundamental proposition is that with which we are 
already acquainted in the literature of the movement for reconstruc- 
tion, that, namely, of declaring what laws of a particular state are or 
are not legitimate; every such state being considered as a province of 
the universal theocratic monarchy.— " The Pope, the Kings, and the 
People,'' William Arthur, A. M., pp. 4S5^437. London: HoMer and 
Stoughton, 1B03. 



CREATION, ACCOUNTS OF 139 

Creation, Hebrew and Babylonian Account of. — It is a widely cur- 
rent theory that the cosmology of the Hebrews, as reflected in Genesis 
1 to 2: 4a, as well as in the prophets and in the poetic productions of 
Israel, was borrowed from the Babylonians, [p. 44] . . . 

The sole argument of value that has been advanced for the Baby- 
lonian origin is, that in purely Israelite environment it is impossible to 
see how it should have been supposed that the primeval ocean alone 
existed at the beginning, for the manner in which the world rises in the 
Hebraic story corresponds entirely to Babylonian climatic conditions, 
where in the winter water holds sway everywhere until the god of the 
spring sun appears, who parts the water and creates heaven and earth. 
This cosmology, it is held, must therefore have had its origin in the 
alluvial plains, such as those of Babylonia, and not in the land of 
Palestine, still less in Syria or the Arabian desert. It also involves a 
special deity of spring or of the morning sun, such as Marduk was, 
and Yahweh was not. [p. 45] . . . 

The Marduk-Tiamat myth, which belonged to the library of Ashur- 
banipal, is a late and elaborated attempt to explain the origin of things. 
The chief purpose of the legend as it 'has been handed down, is the glo- 
rification of the god Marduk, who, as is well known, absorbed the pre- 
rogatives and attributes of the othei* gods, after Hammurabi <?aused him 
to be placed at the head of the Babylonian pantheon. That is to say, 
it is quite apparent that the writer composed the work from existing 
legends, [p. 46] . . . 

The composite character of the Babylonian creation myth being 
well established, and likewise that the amalgamation of the diversified 
elements took place some time prior to the establishment of Ashurbani- 
pal's library, it seems reasonably certain that the two cosmologies, 
which are clearly distinguishable, represent a Semitic myth coming 
from the West, in which Marduk, the god of light, is arrayed against 
Tiamat, the god of darkness, and a Sumerian myth, presumably from 
Eridu, resulting in the establishment of order by Ea, as against the 
chaos, which is personified by Apsu. 

Scholars are mistaken in assuming that there has been a complete 
transplanting of the Babylonian myth to the soil of Yahwism, or that 
the author of the Biblical story had before him not only the cosmolog- 
ical system of the Babylonians, but that particular form which has been 
incorporated into the Assyrian epic. On the contrary, in the light of 
these discussions, it seems reasonably certain that the Western Semites 
who emigrated to Babylonia carried their tradition with them to that 
land, which in time was combined with the Sumerian, resulting in the 
production discovered in the library of Ashurbanipal. [pp. 53, 54] — 
''Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites," Albert T. Clay, Ph. D., 
pp. 44-46, 53, 54. Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Company, 
1909. 

Creation, Babylonian Tradition of. — It has been generally seen 
that this cosmogony bears a remarkable resemblance to the history of 
creation contained in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. Some 
have gone so far as to argue that the Mosaic account was derived from 
it. Others, who reject this notion, suggest that a certain " old Chaldee 
tradition " was " the basis of them both." If we drop out the word 
" Chaldee " from this statement, it may be regarded as fairly expressing 
the truth. The Babylonian legend embodies a primeval tradition, com- 
mon to all mankind, of which an inspired author has given us the 
true groundwork in the first and second chapters of Genesis. What 
is especially remarkable is the fidelity, comparatively speaking, with 



140 CREED, APOSTLES' 

which the Babylonian legend reports the facts. V/hile the whole tone 
and spirit of the two accounts, and even the point of view from which 
they are taken, differ, the general outline of the narrative in each is 
nearly the same. — " The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern 
World," George Rawlinson, M. A., Vol. I, pp. 143, 144. New York: Dodd, 
Mead & Co. 

Creed, The Apostles'. — 

1. I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 

2. and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; 

3. who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; 

4. suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; 

he descended into hell; 

5. the third day he rose from the dead; 

6. he ascended into heaven; and sitteth at the right hand of God 

the Father Almighty; 

7. from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost; 

9. the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; 

10. the forgiveness of sins; 

11. the resurrection of the body; 

12. and the life everlasting. — " A History of Creeds and Confessions 
of Faith,'' William A. Curtis, B. D., D. Litt., p. 64. 

Creed, The Apostles', Tradition Concerning. — For centuries men 
believed the wonderful story told relative to the origin of the Sep- 
tuagint, because the Septuagint was able comfortably to carry just such 
a story; and because the story satisfied the law of harmony and fitness. 

This story is something like the story told of the Apostles' Creed, 
which is the creed of all Christendom. To begin with, the creed bears 
the apostles' names. It is called the Apostles' Creed. I find it printed 
in my copy of the New Testament Apocrypha; and this story, affirmed 
by Ambrose, accompanies it: 

The twelve apostles as skilful artificers assembled together and 
made by their common advice this creed, by which the darkness of the 
devil is disclosed that the light of Christ may appear. Each apostle 
inserted an article; so that the creed is divided into twelve parts. 
The apostles, beginning with Peter, contributed as follows: 

Peter — "I believe in God the Father Almighty, 

John — " Maker of heaven and earth, 

James — " And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, 

Andrew — " Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the 
Virgin Mary, 

Philip — " Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and 
buried; 

Thomas — " He descended into hell, and the third day he rose again 
from the dead; 

Bartholomew — " He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right 
hand of God the Father Almighty. 

Matthew — " From thence shall he come to judge the quick and 
the dead; 

James, the son of Alpheus — " I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy 
catholic church, 

Simon Zelotes — " "The communion of the saints, the forgiveness 
of sins, 

Jude, the brother of James — " The resurrection of the body, 

Matthias — " And the life everlasting. Amen." — " Between the 
Testaments, ot Interbiblical History," Rev. David Gregg, D. D., LL. D., 
pp. 36-37. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1907. 



CREED OP POPE Pius IV 141 

Creeds, Names of. — Thus by the end of the seventh century the so- 
called Catholic or Ecumenical Creeds had assumed the forms in which 
they have come down to us. Sacred as the church has deemed them, 
and highly as it has valued them as bonds of unity and defences of the 
faith, they bear the marks of free handling, and became occasions of 
dissension. Their very titles reveal a certain wilfulness and pretension 
in their adoption. The Apostles' Creed is not the creed of the apostles: 
the Nicene Creed is not the creed of Nicaea, but the creed of Constan- 
tinople, based on the creed of Jerusalem, reinforced by elements from 
Nicaea, Chalcedon, and Toledo: the Athanasian Creed is not the creed 
of Athanasius, but the anonymous composition of Gallic orthodoxy at 
least a century later than the champion of the Nicene faith. Nor is 
one of them in its current form strictly catholic or ecumenical, for 
the Greek Orthodox Church gives no dogmatic sanction to the Quicunque 
Vult, the Apostles' Creed, or the Te Deum, and denounces the form of 
the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed which is current in the West, while 
in the churches beyond the Greek and Roman pale there is every con- 
ceivable variety of attitude toward each and all of them. The applica- 
tion to them, therefore, of the title of catholicity and ecumenicity, in- 
volves a similar kind, though not perhaps an equal degree, of pioas 
exaggeration to that which is inherent in its use in the official designa- 
tions of the great churches of the East and West. — " A History of 
Creeds and Confessions of Faith," William A. Curtis, B. D., D. Lift., 
pp. 406, 407. New York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 1V12. 

Creed of Pope Pius IV, Epitome of Doctrines of Trent. — This 
creed was adopted at the famous Council of Trent, held in the sixteenth 
century, when the doctrines of the Reformation were already widely 
diffused through Europe, and joyfully accepted and held by the young 
Protestant churches of many lands. The Council of Trent was indeed 
Rome's reply to the Reformation. The newly recovered truths of the 
gospel were in its canons and decrees stigmatized as pestilent heresies, 
and all who held them accursed; and in opposition to them this creed 
was prepared and adopted. — " Romanism and the Reformation," H. 
Orattan Guinness, D. D., F. R. A. S., pp. 77, 78. London: J. Nisbet & Co., 
1891. 

This creed of Pope Pius IV is the authoritative papal epitome of 
the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. The importance of this 
council " depends upon the considerations, that its records embody the 
solemn, formal, and official decision of the Church of Rome — which 
claims to be the one holy, catholic church of Christ — upon all the 
leading doctrines taught by the Reformers; that its decrees upon all 
doctrinal points are received by all Romanists as possessed of infallible 
authority; and that every popish priest is sworn to receive, profess, and 
maintain everything defined and declared by it." — Id., p. 80. 

The creed of Pope Pius IV, — which contains twelve articles not 
merely unknown to the primitive church, but, for the most part, con- 
trary to what it received from Christ and his apostles, and destructive 
of it, — with an express declaration that " out of this faith " so enforced 
" there is no salvation." — " Letters to M. Gondon," Chr. Wordsworth, 
D. D., p. 6. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. 

Pius IV now devoted his undivided attention to the completion of 
the labors of the Council of Trent. . . . Pius had the satisfaction of 
seeing the close of the long-continued council and the triumph of the 
Papacy over the antipapal tendencies which at times asserted them- 



142 CREED, ROMAN 

selves. His name is immortally connected with the " Profession of 
Faith," which must be sworn to by every one holding an ecclesiastical 
office. — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. " Pius IF," p. 129. 

Creed, Roman, Authoritative Statement of. — The Apostolic, 
Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, and in general all the doctrinal de- 
crees which the first four general councils have laid down in respect 
to the Trinity, and to the person of Christ, those Protestants who are 
faithful to their church, recognize in common with Catholics; and on 
this point the Lutherans, at the commencement of the Augsburg Con- 
fession, as well as in the Smalcald Articles, solemnly declared their 
belief. Not less explicit and public were the declarations of the Re- 
formed. These formularies constitute the common property of the sepa- 
rate churches — the precious dowry which the overwise daughters car- 
ried away with them from the maternal house to their new settlements: 
they cannot accordingly be matter of discussion here, where we have 
only to speak of the disputes which occasioned the separation, but not 
of those remaining bonds of union to which the severed yet cling. We 
shall first speak of those writings wherein, at the springing up of dis- 
sensions, the Catholic Church declared her primitive domestic laws. 

1. The Council of Trent. — Soon after the commencement of the 
controversies, of which Luther was the author, but whereof the cause 
lay hidden in the whole spirit of that age, the desire from many quar- 
ters was expressed and by the emperor Charles V warmly represented 
to the papal court, that a general council should undertake the settle- 
ment of these disputes. But the very complicated nature of the matters 
themselves, as well as numerous obstacles of a peculiar kind, which 
have seldom been impartially appreciated, did not permit the opening 
of the council earlier than the year 1545, under Pope Paul III. After 
several long interruptions, one of which lasted ten years, the council, 
in the year 1563, under the pontificate of Pius IV, was, on the close of 
the twenty-fifth session, happily concluded. The decrees regard dogma 
and discipline. Those regarding the former are set forth, partly in the 
form of treatises, separately entitled decretum or doctrina, partly in 
the form of short propositions, called canones. The former describe, 
sometimes very circumstantially, the Catholic doctrine; the latter de- 
clare in terse and pithy terms against the prevailing errors in doctrine. 
The disciplinary ordinances, with the title Decretum de Reformatione, 
will but rarely engage our attention. 

2. The second writing, which we must here name, is the Tridentine, 
or Roman catechism, with the title Catechismus Romanus ex Decreto 
Goncilii Tridentini. The fathers of the church, assembled at Trent, 

"felt, themselves, the want of a good catechism for general use, although 
very serviceable works of that kind were then not altogether wanting. 
These, even during the celebration of the council, increased to a great 
quantity. None, however, gave perfect satisfaction; and it was re- 
solved that one should be composed and published by the council itself. 
In fact, the council examined the outline of one prepared by a commit- 
tee; but this, for want of practical utility and general intelligibleness, 
it was compelled to reject. At length, when the august assembly was 
on the point of being dissolved, it saw the necessity of renouncing the 
publication of a catechism, and of concurring in the proposal of the 
papal legates, to leave to the Holy See the preparation of such a work. 
The Holy Father selected for this important task three distinguished 
theologians, namely, Leonardo Marino, archbishop of Lanciano; Egidio 
Foscarari, bishop of Modena; and Francisco Fureiro, a Portuguese Do- 
minican. They were assisted by three cardinals, and the celebrated 
philologist, Paulus Manutius, who was to give the last finish to the 
Latin diction and style of the work. 



CREED, ROMAN 143 

It appeared in the year 1566, under Pope Pius IV, and as a proof of 
its excellence, the various provinces of the church — some even by nu- 
merous synodal decrees — hastened publicly to introduce it. This 
favorable reception', in fact, it fully deserved, from the pure evangelical 
spirit which was found to pervade it, from the unction and clearness 
with which it was written, and from that happy exclusion of scholastic 
opinions, and avoidance of scholastic forms, which was generally de- 
sired. It was, nevertheless, designed merely as a manual for pastors 
in the ministry, and not to be a substitute for children's catechisms, 
although the originally continuous form of its exposition was after- 
ward broken up into questions and answers. 

But now it may be asked, whether it possess really a symbolical 
authority and symbolical character? This question cannot be answered 
precisely in the affirmative; for, in the iBrst place, it was neither pub- 
lished nor sanctioned, but only occasioned, by the Council of Trent. 
Secondly, according to the destination prescribed by the Council of 
Trent, it was not, like regular formularies, to be made to oppose any 
theological error, but only to apply to practical use the symbol i of 
faith already put forth. Hence, it answers other wants, and is accord- 
ingly constructed in a manner far different from public confessions of 
faith. This work, also, does not confine itself to those points of belief 
merely which, in opposition to the Protestant communities, the Catholic 
Church holds; but it embraces all the doctrines of the gospel; and hence 
it might be named (if the usage of speech and the peculiar objects of 
all formularies were compatible with such a denomination), a confes- 
sion of the Christian church in opposition of all non-Christian creeds. 
If, for the reason first stated, the Roman catechism be devoid of a 
formal universal sanction of the church, so it wants, for the second 
reason assigned, all the internal qualities and the special aim which 
formularies are wont to have. In the third place, it is worthy of 
notice that on one occasion, in a controversy touching the relation of 
grace to freedom, the Jesuits asserted before the supreme authorities 
of the church, that the catechism possessed not a symbolical character; 
and no declaration in contradiction to their opinion was pronounced. 

But if we refuse to the Roman catechism the character of a public 
confession, we by no means deny it a great authority, which, even from 
the very circumstance that it was composed by order of the Council of 
Trent, undoubtedly belongs to it. In the next place, as we have said, 
it enjoys a very general approbation from the teaching church, and can 
especially exhibit the many recommendations which on various occa- 
sions the sovereign pontiffs have bestowed on it. "We shall accordingly 
often refer to it, and use it as a very important voucher for Catholic 
doctrine; particularly where the declarations of the Council of Trent 
are not sufficiently ample and detailed. 

3. The Professio Fidel Tridentinu [Tridentine Profession of Faith] 
stands in a similar relation. 

4. Shortly after the times of the Council of Trent, and in part dur- 
ing its celebration, there arose within the Catholic Church doctrinal 
controversies, referring mostly to the relation between grace and free- 
dom, and to subjects of a kindred nature; and hence, even for our 
purposes, they are not without importance. For the settlement of the 
dispute, the apostolic see saw itself forced to issue several constitu- 
tions, wherein it was obliged to enter into the examination of the mat- 
ter in debate. To these constitutions belong especially the bulls, pub- 
lished by Innocent X, against the five propositions of Jansenius, and 
the bull Unigenitus, by Clement XI. We may undoubtedly say of these 



1 Symbol : . . . 3. Theol. A formal and authoritative statement of religious 
doctrine ; a confession of faith ; creed. — New Standard Dictionary. 



144 CRITICISM, LAWS OF 

constitutions, that they possess no symbolical character, for they only 
note certain propositions as erroneous, and do not set forth the doctrine 
opposed to the error, but suppose it to be already known. But a formu- 
lary of faith must not merely reject error; it must state doctrine. As 
the aforesaid bulls, however, rigidly adhere to the decisions of Trent, 
and are composed quite in their spirit; as they, moreover, have refer- 
ence to many important questions, and settle, though only in a negative 
way, these questions in the sense of the above-named decrees; we shall 
occasionally recur to them, and illustrate by their aid many a Catholic 
dogma. 

It is evident from what has been said, that the Catholic Church, in 
fact, has, in the matters in question, but one writing of a symbolical 
authority. All that, in any respect, may bear such a title, is only a 
deduction from this formulary, or a nearer definition, illustration, or 
application of its contents, or is in part only regulated by it, or in any 
case obtains a value only by agreement with it, and hence cannot, in 
point of dignity, bear a comparison with the original itself. — " Sym- 
bolism," John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C), pp. 11-15. 

Note. — The preface to tlie first edition of Dr. Moehler's work is dated 
" Tiibingen, 1832." Since that time the creed of the Roman Church has been 
enlarged by the addition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Vir- 
gin Mary, promulgated by Pope Pius IX in 1854, and the canons and decrees of 
the Vatican Council, 1869-70. These added dogmas are now of the same authority 
as the canons and decrees of Trent. — Eds. 

Creed, Roman, Principal, Authorities for. — ^The doctrines of the 
Roman Catholic Church are laid down in the ecumenical creeds, the 
acts of nineteen or twenty ecumenical councils, the bulls of the popes, 
and especially the Tridentine and Vatican -standards. The principal 
authorities are the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent (1563), 
the Profession of the Tridentine Faith, commonly called the Creed of 
Pius IV (1564), the Roman Catechism (1566), the decree of the Immacu- 
late Conception (1854), and the Vatican decrees on the Catholic faith 
and tlie infallibility of the Pope (1870). The best summary of the 
leading articles of the Roman faith is contained in the Creed of Pope 
Pius IV, which is binding upon all priests and public teachers, and 
which .must be confessed by all converts. — Philip Schaft, D. D., in " New 
Universal Cyclopedia," Johnson, Vol. Ill, art. " Roman Catholic Church," 
part 2, p. 1702. 

Criticism, Laws of. — I am not av/are that the laws [" of the mod- 
ern historical criticism "] in question have ever been distinctly laid 
down in a compendious, or even in an abstract form. They are assumed 
throughout the writings of our best historians, but they are involved 
in their criticisms rather than directly posited as their principles. I 
believe, however, that I shall not misrepresent them if I say that, 
viewed on their positive side, they consist chiefly of the four following 
canons : 

1. When the record which we possess of an event is the writing of 
a contemporary, supposing that he is a credible witness and had means 
of observing the fact to which he testifies, the fact is to be accepted as 
possessing the first or highest degree of historical credibility. Such 
evidence is on a par with that of witnesses in a court of justice, with 
the drawback, on the one hand, that the man who gives it is not sworn 
to speak the truth, and with the advantage, on the other, that he is less 
likely than the legal witness to have a personal interest in the matter 
concerning which he testifies. 

2. When the event recorded is one which the writer may be reason- 
ably supposed to have obtained directly from those who witnessed it, 
we should accept it as probably true, unless it be in itself very im- 



CHOSS, ORIGIN OF 145 

probable. Such evidence possesses the second degree of historical cred- 
ibility. 

3. When the event recorded is removed considerably from the age 
of the recorder of it, and there is no reason to believe that he obtained 
it from a contemporary writing, but the probable source of his informa- 
tion was oral tradition; still, if the event be one of great importance 
and of public notoriety, if it affected the national life or prosperity,— 
especially if it be of a nature to have been at once commemorated by 
the establishment of any rite or practice, — then it has a claim to belief 
as probably true, at least in its general outline. This, however, is the 
third, and a comparatively low, degree of historical credibility. 

4. When the traditions of one race, which, if unsupported, would 
have had but small claim to attention, and none to belief, are corrobo- 

.rated by the traditions of another, especially if a distant or hostile race, 
the event which has this double testimony obtains thereby a high 
amount of probability, and if not very unlikely in itself, thoroughly de- 
serves acceptance. The degree of historical credibility in this case is 
not exactly commensurable with that in the others, since a new and 
distinct ground of likelihood comes into play. It may be as strong as 
the highest, and it may be almost as weak as the lowest, though this 
is not often the case in fact. In a general way, we may say that the 
weight of this kind of evidence exceeds that which has been called the 
third degree of historical probability, and nearly approaches to the 
second. — ''The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture 
Records,'" George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 39, 40. New Yorlc: John B. 
Alden, 1883. 

Cross, Babylo>;ian Origix of. — The same sign of the cross that 
Rome now worships was used in the Babylonian mysteries, was applied 
by paganism to the same magic purposes, was honored with the same 
honors. That which is now called the Christian cross was originally 
no Christian emblem at all, but was the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans 
and Egyptians — the true original form of the letter T — the initial 
of the name of Tammuz. . . . That mystic Tau was marked in baptism on 
the foreheads of those initiated in the mysteries, and was used in every 
variety of way as a most sacred symbol. To identify Tammuz with 
the sun it was joined sometynes to the circle of the sun, sometimes it 
was inserted in the circle. Whether the Maltese cross, which the 
Romish bishops append to their names as a symbol of their episcopal 
dignity, is the letter T, may be doubtful; but there seems no reason to 
doubt that that Maltese cross is an express symbol of the sun; for 
Layard found it as a sacred symbol in Nineveh in such a connection as 
led him to identify it with the sun. — " The Two Badylons," Rev. Alex- 
ander- Hislop, pp. 197, 198, 7th edition. London: 8. W. Partridge & Co. 

Cross, Pagan Form of Punishment. — As an instrument of death 
the cross was detested by the Jews. " Cursed is every one that hangeth 
on a tree" (Gal. 3: 13; cf. Deut. 21: 23); hence it became a stumbling- 
block to them, for how could one accursed of God be their Messiah? Nor 
was the cross differently considered by the Romans. " Let the very 
name of the cross be far away not only from the body of a Roman citi- 
zen, but even from his thoughts, his eyes, his ears." 

The earliest mode of crucifixion seems to have been by impalation, 
the transfixion of the body lengthwise and crosswise by sharpened 
stakes, a mode of death punishment still well known among the Mongol 
race. The usual mode of crucifixion was familiar to the Greeks, th<e 
Romans, the Egyptians, Persians, and Babylonians. Alexander the 
Great executed two thousand Tyrian captives in this way, after the fall 
10 



146 CRUCIFIXION 

of the city. The Jews received this form of punishment from the Syr- 
ians and Romans. The Roman citizen was exempt from this form of 
death, it being considered the death of a slave. The punishment was 
meted out for such crimes as treason, desertion in the face of the 
enemy, robbery, piracy, assassination, sedition, etc. It continued in 
vogue in the Roman Empire till the day of Constantine, when it waa 
abolished as an insult to Christianity. 

Among the Romans, crucifixion was preceded by scourging, un- 
doubtedly to hasten impending death. The victim then bore his own 
cross, or at least the upright beam, to the place of execution. This in 
itself proves that the structure was less ponderous than is commonly 
supposed. When he was tied to the cross, nothing further was done, 
and he was left to die from starvation. If he was nailed to the cross, 
at least in Judea, a stupefying drink was given him to deaden the agony. 
The number of nails used seems to have been indeterminate. A tablet, 
on which the feet rested or on which the body was partly supported, 
seems to have been a part of the cross to keep the wounds from tearing 
through the transfixed members. 

The suffering of death by crucifixion was intense, especially in hot 
climates. Severe local inflammation, coupled with an insignificant 
bleeding of the jagged wounds, produced traumatic fever, which was 
aggravated by the exposure to the heat of the sun, the strained position 
of the body, and insufferable thirst. The wounds swelled about the 
rough nails, and the torn and lacerated tendons and nerves caused ex- 
cruciating agony. The arteries of the head and stomach were sur- 
charged with blood, and a terrific throbbing headache ensued. The 
mind was confused and filled with anxiety and dread foreboding. The 
victim of crucifixion literally died a thousand deaths. Tetanus not 
rarely supervened, and the rigors of the attending convulsions would 
tear at the wounds and add to the burden of pain, till at last the bodily 
forces were exhausted and the victim sank to unconsciousness and 
death. The sufferings were so frightful that " even among the raging 
passions of war/ pity was sometimes excited." 

The length of this agony was wholly determined by the constitution 
of the victim, but death rarely ensued before thirty-six hours had 
elapsed. Instances are on record of victinis of the cross who survived 
their terrible injuries when taken down from the cross after many hours 
of suspension. Death was sometimes hastened by breaking the legs 
of the victims and by a hard blow delivered under the armpit before 
crucifixion. Crura fracta was a well-known Roman term. 

The sudden death of Christ evidently was a matter of astonishment. 
Mark 15: 44. The peculiar symptoms mentioned by John (19: 34) 
would seem to point to a rupture of the heart, of which the Saviour died, 
independent of the cross itself, or perhaps hastened by its agony. — The 
International Standard BiMe Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., 
D. D., Vol II, art. " Cross;' pp. 761, 762. 

Crucifixion, Description of. — Crucifixion was a punishment which 
the ancients infiicted only on the most notorious criminals and male- 
factors. The cross was made of two beams, either crossing at the top 
at right angles, or in the middle of their length like an X. There was, 
besides, a piece on the center of the transverse beam, to which was 
attached the accusation, or statement of the culprit's crime; together 
with a piece of wood that projected from the middle, on which the 
person sat as on a kind of saddle, and by which the whole body was 
supported. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, gives 
this description: and it is worthy of note that he lived in the former 



CRUCIFIXION 147 

part of the second century of the Christian era, before the punishment 
of the cross was abolished. The cross on which our Lord suffered, was 
of the former kind, being thus represented on all ancient monuments, 
coins, and crosses. 

Crucifixion is one of the most cruel and excruciating deaths, which 
the art of ingeniously tormenting and extinguishing life ever devised. 
The naked body of the criminal was fastened to the upright beam by 
nailing or tying the feet to it, and on the transverse beam by nailing 
and sometimes tying the hands to it. Those members, being the grand 
instruments of motion, are provided with a greater quantity of nerves, 
which (especially those of the hands) are peculiarly sensible. As the 
nerves are the instruments of all sensation or feeling, wounds in the 
parts where they abound must be peculiarly painful, especially when 
inflicted with such rude instruments as large nails, forcibly driven 
through the exquisitely delicate tendons, nerves, and bones of those 
parts. The horror of this punishment will appear when it is considered 
that the person was permitted to hang (the whole weight of his body 
being borne up by his nailed hands and feet, and by the projecting 
piece in the middle of the cross) until he perished through agony and 
want of food. There are instances of crucified persons living in this 
exquisite torture several days. " The wise and adorable Author of our 
being has formed and constituted the fabric of our bodies in such a 
merciful manner that nothing violent is lasting. Friendly death sealed 
the eyes of those wretches generally in three days. Hunger, thirst, and 
acute pain dismissed them from their intolerable sufferings. The rites 
of sepulture were denied them. Their dead bodies were generally left 
on the crosses on which they were first suspended, and became a prey 
to every ravenous beast and carnivorous bird. 

1. " Crucifixion obtained among several ancient nations, the Egyp- 
tians, Persians, Greeks, and Carthaginians. . . . But this manner of 
executing criminals prevailed most among the Romans. It was gener- 
ally a servile punishment, and chiefly inflicted on vile, worthless, and 
incorrigible slaves. In reference to this, the apostle, describing the 
condescension of Jesus, and his submission to this most opprobrious 
death, represents him as taking upon him the form of a servant (Phil. 
2: 7, 8), and becoming obedient to death, even the death of, the cross. 

2. " It was universally and deservedly reputed the most shameful 
and ignominious death to which a wretch could be exposed. In such an 
exit were comprised every idea and circumstance of odium, disgrace, and 
public scandal." Hence the apostle magnifies and extols the great love 
of our Redeemer, " in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for 
us," and " for the joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the 
shame" (Rom. 5: 8; Heb. 12: 2), disregarding every circumstance of 
public indignity and infamy with which such a death was loaded. " It 
was from the idea they connected with such a death, that the Greeks 
treated the apostles with the last contempt and pity for publicly 
embarking in the cause of a person who had been brought to this 

. reproachful and dishonorable death by his own countrymen. The 
preaching of the cross was to them foolishness (1 Cor. 1: 23); the pro- 
mulgation of a system of religion that had been taught by a person who, 
by a national act, had publicly suffered the punishment and death of the 
most useless and abandoned slave, was in their ideas the last infatu- 
ation; and the preaching of Christ crucified, publishing in the world a 
religion whose Founder suffered on a cross, appeared the last absurdity 
and madness. The heathens looked upon the attachment of the prim- 
itive Christians to a religion whose publisher had come to such an end, 
as an undoubted proof of their utter ruin, that they were destroying 
their interest, comfort, and happiness by adopting such a system founded 
on such a dishonorable circumstance. 



148 CtmiA, MEANING OF 

" The same inherent scandal and ignominy had crucifixion in the 
estimation of the Jews. They ijndeed annexed more complicated 
wretchedness to it, for they esteemed the miscreant who was adjudged to 
such an end not only to be abandoned of men, but forsaken of God. 
He that is hanged, says the law, is accursed of God. Deut. 21: 28. 
Hence St. Paul, representing to the Galatians the grace of Jesus, who 
released us from that curse to which the law of Moses devoted us, by 
being made a curse for us, by submitting to be treated for our sakes as 
an execrable malefactor, to show the horror of such a death as Christ 
voluntarily endured, adds, * It is written in the law, Cursed is every 
one that hangeth on a tree.' Gal. 3: 13. And from this express decla- 
ration of the law of Moses concerning persons thus executed, we may 
account for that aversion the Jews discovered against Christianity, 
and perceive the reason of what St. Paul asserts, that their preaching 
of Christ crucified was to the Jews a stumblingblock. 1 Cor. 1: 23. 
The circumstance of the cross caused them to stumble at the very gate 
of Christianity." — "An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge 
of the Holy Scriptures," Thomas Hartwell Home, B. D., Vol. Ill, pp. 
158-160. London: T. Gadell, 1839. 

Curia. — Curia is a comprehensive term used in the phrase, Curia 
Romana, " The Court of Rome," for the entire system of officials of 
various kinds and degrees who compose the administration of the Pope. 
— The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 
Ill, art " Curia," p. 



Daniel, Book of, Time of Writing of. — In no respect do the actual 
contents of this book [Daniel] correspond with the relations and cir- 
cumstances of the times of the Maccabees; but, on the contrary, they 
point decidedly to the time of the exile. The historical parts show an 
intimate acquaintance not only with the principal events of the time 
of the exile, but also with the laws and manners and customs of the 
Chaldean and Medo-Persian monarchies. The definite description (eh. 
1 : 1 ) of the first expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, which 
is fabricated certainly from no part of the Old Testament, and which is 
yet proved to be correct, points to a man well acquainted with this 
event; sa, too, the communication regarding King Belshazzar (ch, 5), 
whose name occurs only in this book, is nowhere else independently 
found. An intimate familiarity with the historical relations of the 
Medo-Persian kingdom is seen in the mention made of the law of the 
Medes and Persians (ch. 6: 9, 13), since from the time of Cyrus the 
Persians are always placed before the Medes, and only in the book of 
Esther do we read of the Persians and Medes (ch. 1: 3, 14, 18), and of 
the law of the Persians and Medes (ch. 1: 19). 

An intimate acquaintance with the state regulations of Babylon is 
manifest in the statement made in ch. 1: 7 (proved by 2 Kings 24: 17 
to be a Chaldean custom), that Daniel and his companions, on their 
being appointed for the king's service, received new names, two of which 
were names derived from Chaldean idols; in the account of their food 
being brought from the king's table (ch. 1: 5) ; in the command to turn 
into a dunghill (ch. 2: 5) the houses of the magicians who were con- 
demned to death; in the death punishments mentioned in ch. 2:5 and 
3 : 6, the being hewn to pieces and cast into a burning fiery furnace, 
which are shown by Ezekiel 16: 10; 23: 47; Jer. 29: 29, and other proofs, 
to have been in use among the Chaldeans, while among the Medo- 
Persians the punishment of being cast into the den of lions is mentioned 
(ch. 6: 8, 13 ff.). The statement made about the clothing worn by the 
companions of Daniel (ch. 3: 21) agrees with a passage in Herodotus 



DANIEL, BOOK OF 149 

(i. 195); and the exclusion of women from feasts and banquets is con- 
firmed by Xen., Cyrop., v. 2, and Curtius, v. 1, 38. As to the account 
given in ch. 2: 5, 7, of the priests and wise men of Chaldea, Fr. Miinter 
("Religion der Babylon," p. 5) has remarked, "What the early Israel- 
itish prophets record regarding the Babylonish religion agrees well with 
the notices found in Daniel; and the traditions perserved by Ctesias, 
Herodotus, Berosus, and Diodorus are in perfect accordance therewith." 
Compare with this what P. F. Stuhr (Die heidn. Religion, des alt. 
Orients, p. 416 ff.) has remarked concerning the Chaldeans as the first 
class of the wise men of Babylon. A like intimate acquaintance with 
facts on the part of the author of this book is seen in his statements 
regarding the government and the state officers of the Chaldean and 
Medo-Persian kingdom (cf. Hgstb. Beitr. i, p. 346 ff.). 

The prophetical parts of this book also manifestly prove its origin 
in the time of the Babylonian exile. The foundation of the world 
kingdom by Nebuchadnezzar forms the historical starting-point for the 
prophecy of the world kingdoms. " Know, king," says Daniel to 
him in interpreting his dream of the world monarchies, " thou art the 
head of gold" (ch. 2: 38). 

The visions which are vouchsafed to Daniel date from the reign of 
Belshazzar the Chaldean, Darius the Median, and Cyrus the Persian 
(ch. 7: 1; 8:1; 9:1; 10: 1). With this stands in harmony the circum- 
stance that of the four world kingdoms only the first three are histor- 
ically explained, viz., besides the first of the monarchy of Nebuchad- 
nezzar (ch. 2: 37), the second of the kingdom of the Medes and Per- 
sians, and the third of the kingdom of Javan, out of which, at the death 
of the first king, four kingdoms shall arise toward the four winds of 
heaven (ch. 8: 20-22). Of the kings of the Medo-Persian kingdom, only 
Darius the Median and Cyrus the Persian, during whose reign Daniel 
lived, are named. Moreover the rise of yet four kings of the Persians 
is announced, and the warlike expedition of the fourth against the king- 
dom of Javan, as also the breaking up and the division toward the 
four winds (ch. 11: 5-19) of the kingdom of the victorious king of Javan. 
[pp. 46-48] . . . 

The contents of Daniel 9 accord with the age of the Maccabees still 
less than do the visions of the world kingdoms. Three and a half cen- 
turies after the accomplishment of Jeremiah's prophecy of the desola- 
tion of Judah, after Jerusalem and the temple had been long ago rebuilt, 
it could not come into the mind of any Jew to put into the mouth of the 
exiled prophet Daniel a penitential prayer for the restoration of the 
Holy City, and to represent Gabriel as having brought to him the proph- 
ecy that the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem prophesied 
of by Jeremiah were not yet fulfilled, but should only be fulfilled after 
the lapse of seventy year-weeks, in contradiction to the testimony of 
Ezra, or, according to modern critics, of the author of the books of 
Chronicles and of Ezra, living at the end of the Persian era, that God, 
in order to fulfil his word spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, had in the 
first year of Cyrus stirred up the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia to 
send forth an edict throughout his whole kingdom, which directed the 
Jews to return to Jerusalem, and commanded them to rebuild the temple. 
2 Chron. 36: 22 f.; Ezra 1: 1-4. 

If now, in conclusion, we take into consideration the religious 
spirit of this book, we find that the opponents of its genuineness display 
no special gift of didKpi<ns irvevixdruv [diaJcHsis pneumaton, discerning of 
spirits], when they place the book of Daniel in the same category with 
the Sybilline Oracles, the fourth book of Ezra (=z 2 Esdras), the book 
of Enoch, the Ascensio Jesajce, and other pseudepigraphical products of 



150 DANIEL, BOOK OF 

apocryphal literature, and represent the narrative of the events of Dan- 
iel's life and his visions as a literary production after the manner of 
Deuteronomy and the book of Koheleth (Ecclesiastes), which a Macca- 
bean Jew has chosen, in order to gain for the wholesome truths which 
h^ wished to represent to his contemporaries the wished-for acceptance 
(Bleek, p. 593 f.). [pp 49, 50] . . . 

Still less can it be conceived that (as Bleek, p. 604, says) the author 
of this book had " without doubt Antiochus Epiphanes before his eyes " 
in Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 4), and also in Belshazzar (ch. 5). It is true 
that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, according to ch. 4 and 5, sin 
against the Almighty God of heaven and earth and are punished for it, 
and Antiochus Epiphanes also at last fell under the judgment of God 
on account of his wickedness. But this general resemblance, that 
heathen rulers by their contact with the Jews did dishonor to the 
Almighty God, and were humbled and punished for it, repeats itself 
at all times, and forms no special characteristic of the time of Antiochus 
Epiphanes. [p. 52] ... 

The narratives regarding Nebuchadnezzar, his dream, the consecra- 
tion of the golden statue, and his conduct after his recovery from his 
madness, as well as those regarding Darius (ch. 6), could not be 
invented, at least could not be invented by a Maccabean Jew, because 
in the pre-exilian history there are altogether wanting types correspond- 
ing to the psychological delineation of these characters. It is true that 
a Pharaoh raised Joseph, who interpreted his dream, to be the chief 
ruler in his kingdom, but it does not come into his mind to give honor 
to the God who revealed in the dream what would befall his kingdom. 
Genesis 41. For the other narratives of this book there are wanting in 
the Old Testament incidents with which they could be connected; and 
the resemblance between the life-experience of Joseph and that of 
Daniel extends only to these general matters, that both received from 
God the gift of interpreting dreams, and by means of this gift brought 
help and deliverance to their people: in all details, however, Daniel Is 
so different from Joseph that the delineation of his portrait as found 
in this book cannot be regarded as a copy of the history of Joseph, 
[pp. 53, 54] . . . 

Finally in the Sibyls there is wanting a prophetical object. The 
prophetical object of Daniel is the world power over against the king- 
dom of God. This historico-prophetic idea is the determinating, sole, 
all-penetrating idea in Daniel, and the center of it lies throughout in 
the end of the world power, in its inner development and its inner 
powerlessness over against the kingdom of God. The four world-forms 
do not begin with the history of nations and extend over our present 
time. On the contrary, the creative prophetic spirit is wanting to the 
Sibyl; not one historical thought of deliverance is peculiar to it; it is 
a genuine Alexandrine compilation of prophetic and Grseco-classic 
thoughts externally conceived. 

The thought peculiarly pervading it, to raise Judaism to the rank 
of the world religion, is only a human reflection of the divine plan, that 
in Abraham all the nations shall be blessed, which pervades all the 
prophets as the great thought in the history of the world; in Daniel it 
comes out into the greatest clearness, and is realized by Christianity. 
This prophetic world-thought the Sibyl has destroyed, i. e., has reli- 
giously spiritualized and politically materialized it. " Not the living 
and holy covenant God Jehovah, who dwells on high and with the con- 
trite in heart, but Godhead uncreated and creating all things, without 
distinction in himself, the invisible God, who sees all things, who is 
neither male nor female, as he appears at a later period in the teaching 



DANIEL, BOOK OF 151 

of the school of Philo, is he whom the Sibyl in very eloquent language 
declares to the heathen. But of the God of Israel, who not only created 
the world, but who also has a divine kingdom on the earth, and will 
build up this kingdom, — in a word, of the God of the history of redemp- 
tion, as he is seen in his glory in Daniel, we find no trace whatever." 

The materialistic historic prophecy of the Sibyllist corresponds with 
this religious spiritualism. He seeks to imitate the prophecies of Dan- 
iel, but he does not know the prophetic fundamental thought of the 
kingdom of God over against the kingdom of the world, and therefore 
he copies the empirical world history: "First, Egypt will rule, then 
Assyria, Persia, Media, Macedonia, Egypt again, and then Rome." 

Thus the Sibylline Apocalyptic is fundamentally different from the 
prophecies of Daniel. Whoever has a mind so little disciplined that 
he cannot perceive this difference, cannot be expected to know how to 
distinguish between the prophecies of Daniel and the philosophical 
reflections of the book of Koheleth. If Koheleth brings forward his 
thoughts regarding the vanity of all things in the name of the wise 
king Solomon, then is this literary production, which, moreover, is bo 
very transparent that every reader of the book can see through it, 
altogether comprehensible. If, on the other hand, a Maccabean Jew 
clothe his own self-conceived ideas regarding the development of the 
war of the heathen world powers against the people of God in revela- 
tions from God, which the prophet living in the Babylonian exile might 
have received, then this undertaking is not merely literary deception, 
but at the same time an abuse of prophecy, which, as a prophesying 
out of one's own heart, is a sin to which God in his law has annexed 
the punishment of death. 

If the book of Daniel were thus a production of a Maccabean Jew, 
who would bring " certain wholesome truths " which he thought he pos- 
sessed before his contemporaries as prophecies of a divinely enlightened 
seer of the time of the exile, then it contains neither prophecy given 
by God nor in general wholesome divine truth, but mere human inven- 
tion, which, because it was clothed with falsehood, could not have its 
origin in the truth. Such a production Christ, the eternal personal 
Truth, never could have regarded as the prophecy of Daniel the prophet, 
and commended to the observation of his disciples, as he has done. 
Matt. 24: 15; cf. Mark 13: 14. 

This testimony of our Lord fixes on the external and internal evi- 
dences which prove the genuineness of the book of Daniel the seal of 
divine confirmation, [pp. 55-57] — ■/' The Book of the Prophet Daniel,'* 
C. F. Keil, translated from the German Iry Rev. M. G. Boston, A. M., 
Introduction, pp. 46-57. Edinburgh: T. d T. Clark, 1872. 

Daniel, Book of. Date of. — There is one other theory to consider; 
it is, that Daniel is indeed a divine book, rightly used as an authority 
in the New Testament; but that it was given forth, not to a prophet 
in Babylon, but to an inspired prophet in the days of the Maccabees, 
[p. 268] . . . 

Every point already proved, which shows that Daniel was used and 
known in and before Maccabean times, meets this theory as fully as 
that of the rejecters of Daniel altogether. The question, whether it was 
worthy of God to do any particular thing, calls for another inquiry; 
namely, whether he has so seen fit or not to do it. Thus, on grounds 
already stated, we may say that God did not see fit to give forth this 
portion of Scripture in Maccabean times. 

But we have further proof in refutation of this theory. If we ad- 
mit the book to possess any authority at all, then the writer was a 



152 DANIEL, BOOK OF 

prophet; as a prophet the Jews have ever owned him, and by the name 
of prophet does our Lord designate him. On this theory, then (which 
professes to admit the authority of Scripture), a prophet he certainl> 
was. But in the Maccabean days there was no prophet at all. When 
Judas Maccabeus purged the temple from the pollutions of Antiochus 
(B. c. 165), and removed the idol which had been erected on the altar, 
" they took counsel concerning the altar of burnt offering which had been 
polluted, what they should do with it. And they determined, with good 
counsel, to pull It down, lest it should be a reproach unto them, be- 
cause the Gentiles had deflled.it: and they pulled down the altar, and 
laid up the stones in the mountain of the house, in a fitting place, until 
there should be a prophet to answer the question concerning them.*' 
1 Mac. 4: 44-46* Twenty-two years later (b. c. 143), when Simon, the 
last survivor of the sons of Mattathias, was the chief of the Jewish 
people, " it pleased the Jews, and the priests, that Simon should be 
leader and high priest fot-ever, until there should arise a faithful 
prophet." 1 Mac. 14: 41. Thus certain it is that the Maccabean age 
knew of no prophet. Nor had there been one for a long time : " There 
Was great tribulation in Israel, such as was not from the time that no 
prophet appeared amongst them." 1 Mac. 9 : 27. — " Remarks on the Pro- 
phetic Visions in the Book of Daniel,'* 8. P. Tregelles, LL, D., pp. S68' 
^70. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 188S. 

It is certain that at the Christian era the book of Daniel was com- 
monly received by the Jews as the prophecy of a servant of God in 
Babylon, written about five centuries and a half before. Of this the 
New Testament and Josephus are sufficient proofs. How fully the rul- 
ers of the Jews received it, is shown by their charge of blasphemy 
against our Lord for applying its terms to himself. Had this book 
been one of doubtful authority or obscure origin, they could not have 
thus regarded the use which he made of its contents. — Id., p. 224. 

Daiiiel, Book of, Date of. — It is now conceded that there are neither 
Greek words nor Grsecisms, beyond the names of two or three musical in- 
struments. In the ignorance of general philology at the close of the last 
century, words whose Semitic origin was not obvious, or which belonged 
to the Indo-European family, nay, some whose Aramaic origin is ob- 
vious, were assumed to be Greek. ... Of these nine or ten alleged Greek 
words (two are from the same root), improved philology swept away at 
once all which are not names of musical instruments; three roots 
belonging to the Aryan family, two ppobably being genuine Chaldee. . . . 
Now, whether there remain two or three musical instruments, this 
would be nothing more remarkable than the corresponding fact that 
Greeks imported Syriac or Hebrew names of instruments, together with 
the instruments themselves, as Kivvpa, m/3Xa [kinura, nahla]. We know 
that the Babylonians loved foreign music also, and that they saddened 
their Hebrew captives by bidding them sing to their harps some " of the 
songs of Zion." Isaiah, foretelling the destruction of Babylon, says, " Thy 
pomp is brought down to the grave, the noise of thy viols" (nehaleica). 
Babylon was " a city of merchants; " she "exulted in her ships." Her 
manufactures found their way to Palestine in the days of Joshua. The 
Euphrates connected Babylon downward with India, and above even with 
Armenia and the line of Tyrian commerce, and, through Tyre, with 
Greece, [pp. 24, 25] . . . 

Criticism then, as it became more accurate, retreated, point by point, 
from all which, in its rashness, it had asserted. First, it gave up the 
so-called Grsecisms; then, that there were any Greek words in Daniel 
except three of the musical instruments; then, that there was anything 



DANIEIr, BOOK OF 153 

incredible in some Greek musical instruments being used at Nebuchad- 
nezzar's solemn religious festival; lastly, this crotchet, that two of 
the musical instruments were Macedonian words, must give way like- 
wise. Yet at each stage these pseudo-criticisms did their work. Those 
who disbelieved Daniel believed the authority of the critics. — " Daniel 
the Prophet,'' Rev. E. B. Pusey, D. D., pp. 23-25, 30. London: James 
Parker & Co., 1868. 

Daniel, Book of, Date of, Proved by Its Aeamaic. — The modern 
opponents of the book of Daniel have been constrained to admit that 
the Chaldee of Daniel is nearly identical with that of Ezra, and is as 
distinct as his from that of the earliest Targums. The Aramaic of 
Ezra consists chiefly of documents from 536 b. c, the first year of Cyrus, 
to the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, b. c. 458. The docu- 
ments are, a decree of Cyrus embodied in one of Darius Hystaspes; two 
letters of Persian officials to the kings; rescripts of pseudo-Smerdis, 
Darius Hystaspes, and Artaxerxes. . . . This Aramaic then is anyhow 
the Aramaic of the first half of the fifth century before our Lord; most 
of it probably is original Aramaic of persons not Jews. Some of Dan- 
iel's Aramaic is stated in his book to have been written " in the first 
year of Belshazzar," about 542 b. c, six years before the earliest of the 
documents in Ezra, and some sixty-four years before the latest. The 
great similarity between the Aramaic of these writings is such as one 
should expect from their nearness; at the same time there is variation 
enough utterly to exclude any theory that the Chaldee of Daniel could 
have been copied from that of Ezra. — Id., pp. 40, 41. 

Daniel, Book of. Date of, Proved by Its Hebrew. — In fine, then, 
the Hebrew of Daniel is exactly that which you would expect in a 
writer of his age and under his circumstances. It has not one single 
idiom unsuited to that time. The few Aryan or Syriac words remark- 
ably belong to it. The Chaldee marks itself out as such, as could not 
have been written at the time when, if it had not been a divine and 
prophetic book, it must have been written. 

No opponent has ever ventured to look steadily at the facts of the 
correspondence of the language of Daniel and Ezra, and their difference 
from the language of the earliest Targums. 

It is plainly cumulative evidence, when both portions so written are 
united in one book. Over and above, the fact that the book is writ- 
ten in both languages, suits the times of Daniel, and is inexplicable 
by those who would have it written in the time of the Maccabees. No 
other book, or portion of a book, of the canon approximates to that 
date. The last book, Nehemiah, was finished two and one-half centuries 
before, viz., about b. c. 410. 

The theory of Maccabee Psalms lived too long, but is now num- 
bered with the dead. Only one or two, here and there, who believe little 
besides, believe in this phantom of a past century. But, even if such 
Hebrew, and (which is utterly inconceivable) such Aramaic, could have 
been written in the times of the Maccabees, it would still have been 
inexplicable that both should be written. 

If the object of the writer be supposed to have been to write as 
should be most readily understood, this would account for the Ara- 
maic; but then one who wrote with that object would not have written 
in Hebrew what was of most interest to the people, what was most 
especially written for those times. If his object had been (as was that 
of Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) to write in the language of the ancient 
prophets, then he would not have written in Aramaic at all. The 



154 DANIEL, BOOK OF 

prophecies in the Chaldee portion of Daniel are even more compre- 
hensive for the most part than those of the Hebrew. Had such been 
the object, one should have rather expected that, with the exception of 
the prophecy of the seventy weeks, the languages should have been 
reversed. For the Aramaic portions confessedly speak most of the king- 
dom of the Messiah. 

The use then of the two languages, and the mode in which the 
prophet writes in both, correspond perfectly with his real date; they 
are, severally and together, utterly inexplicable according to the theory 
which would make the book a product of Maccabee times. The lan- 
guage then is one mark of genuineness, set by God on the book. Ra- 
tionalism must rebel, as it has rebelled; but it dare not now, with any 
moderate honesty, abuse philology to cover its rebellion. — " Daniel the 
Prophet" Rev. E. B. Pusey, D. D., pp. 57-59. London: James Parker 
& Co., 1868. 

Daniel, Book of, Reliability or. — None of the historic statements 
of Daniel can be invalidated. Alleged errors are as follows: 

1. No secular historian names Belshazzar, therefore Belshazzar 
never existed. But in 1854 Belshazzar was found in the monuments. 

2. Daniel calls Nebuchadrezzar king before Nabopolassar died. 
But so does Jeremiah (27: 6); Nebuchadrezzar was admitted to co- 
sovereignty. 

3. Daniel terms a gild of wise men " Chaldeans," a use unknown 
till four centuries after the exile. But Herodotus (i. 181, 185) in the 
same century with Daniel uses the same term. 

4. Belshazzar was not king, nor was he the son or grandson of 
Nebuchadrezzar. But somebody was left in command at Babylon when 
Nabonidus led out the army to Sippar. Who but his oldest and favorite 
son? Exercising royal authority, Belshazzar was king as much as was 
Nebuchadrezzar in similar circumstances. The queen mother (Dan. 
5: 11) said Nebuchadrezzar was Belshazzar's father (or grandfather). 
Probabilities sustain her truthfulness, thus: Evil-Merodach, Nebuchad- 
rezzar's son, succeeded his father, and was succeeded by Neriglissar be- 
cause he had married a daughter of the great king, the legitimate 
successor being Neriglissar's son. The son of Neriglissar dying, how 
came Nabonidus to occupy the throne in turbulent Babylon, unchallenged 
for seventeen years? If he had married another daughter of Nebuchad- 
rezzar, then his son Belshazzar was grandson of Nebuchadrezzar, and 
legitimate heir, and the prophecy of Jeremiah 27:6, 7, "Nebuchad- 
rezzar, his son, and son's son," was fulfilled. 

5. Daniel 1: 1, "third year," is inconsistent with Jeremiah 36: 9; 
46: 2, "fourth or fifth year." This, if true, would eliminate the con- 
jectured Maccabean fabricator, for a fabricator with Jeremiah before 
him (Dan. 9:2) would not contradict Jeremiah in the first sentence 
of his romance. But there is no inconsistency. 

6. The annalistic tablet of Cyrus intimates that Babylon was taken 
easily. This agrees with Daniel (5: 30, 31), but there must have been 
some struggle, for the tablet says " the king's son died," and Daniel says 
" that night Belshazzar was slain." The tablet says further that the city 
yielded to Gobryas, — Cyrus not appearing for several weeks, — and that 
Gobryas was made governor and appointed other governors; all of 
which corresponds to Darius the Mede, who " received " the kingdom 
and appointed satraps, etc. Dan. 5: 30; 6:1. Cyrus had other con- 
quests to make, and left a subordinate king in Babylon, wisely ap- 
pointing a Mede. . . . 



DANIEL, BOOK OF 155 

7. There are three Greek words in Daniel 3 : 5. They are the names 
of musical instruments, and these carry their native names with them. 

8. Part of the book of Daniel is in Aramaic (2: 4 to 7: 28). But 
so is Ezra 4: 8 to 6: 18. Ezra, too, was brought up in Babylon. His 
Aramaic is "all but identical" (Driver) with Daniel's. Aramaic was 
the vernacular. Each writer drops into it upon slight suggestion, 
Ezra upon quoting an Aramaic letter; Daniel upon quoting the fright- 
ened Chaldeans. The tablets from Nippur in course of decipherment 
by Professor Clay are in point; the business contracts are written in 
Babylonian cuneiform, the labels or dockets on the back are in Aramaic, 
for quick reference by the clerks in the oflBce. 

As to the other " historic inaccuracies," as Daniel's being too young 
for Ezekiel to have known — he was forty, possibly fifty, years old 
when Ezekiel wrote of him; as to his not knowing how to spell the 
name Nebuchadrezzar — he spells it as Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra do, 
and as Jeremiah does half the time. On the other hand, there was a 
Daniel, eminent, wise, and godly enough to be linked with Noah and 
Job. Eze. 14: 14, 20. There is no Daniel but the man whose book is 
under consideration and whom Jesus called a prophet. Matt. 24: 15. 
The incident narrated by Josephus (Ant., XI. viii. 5), that Alexander 
saw Daniel's mention of himself, is confirmed by the fact that, while 
Alexander destroyed every city in Syria friendly to Persia, he spared 
and greatly favored Jerusalem. — The New S chaff -Her zog Encyclopedia 
of Religious Knowledge, Yol. Ill, art. " Daniel, Book of,'' p. 350. 

Daniel, Book of, Reliability of Dates in. — Daniel 1 : 1 reads : " In 
the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebu- 
chadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it." The Ger- 
man rationalists denounce this statement as a blunder. Their humble 
disciples, the English skeptics, accept their conclusion and blindly re- 
produce their arguments. Dr. Driver (more suo) takes a middle course 
and brands it as "doubtful" ("Daniel," pp. xlviii and 2). I propose to 
show that the statement is historically accurate, and that its accuracy 
is established by the strict test of chronology. 

A reference to Rawlinson's " Five Great Monarchies " (Vol. Ill, 
488-494)', and to Clinton's "Fasti Hellenici," will show how thoroughly 
consistent the sacred history of this period appears to the mind of a 
historian or a chronologer, and how completely it harmonizes with the 
history of Berosus. Jerusalem was first taken by the Chaldeans in the 
third year of Jehoiakim. His fourth year was ' current with the first 
year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 25: 1). This accords with the statement 
of Berosus that Nebuchadnezzar's first expedition took place before his 
actual accession (Josephus, Apion, i. 19). . . . What Berosus says is 
that when Nebuchadnezzar heard of his father's death, " he set the 
affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the 
captives he had taken from the Jews, and the Phoenicians, and Syrians, 
and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends . . . while 
he went in haste over the desert to Babylon." Will the critics tell us 
how he could have had Jewish captives if he had not invaded Judea; 
how he could have reached Egypt without marching through Palestine; 
how he could have returned to Babylon over the desert if he had set 
out from Carchemish on the Euphrates! . . , 

According to the Canon of Ptolemy, the reign of Nebuchadnezzar 
dates from b. c. 604; i. e., his accession was in the year beginning the 
1st Thoth (which fell in January), b. c. 604. But the captivity began 
in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year (cf. Eze. 1: 2 and 2 Kings 24: 12); 
and in the thirty-seventh year of the captivity Nebuchadnezzar's suc- 
cessor was on the throne (2 Kings 25: 27). This, however, gives Nebu- 



156 DANIEL, BOOK OP 

chadnezzar a reign of at least forty-four years, whereas according to 
the canon (and Berosiis confirms it) he reigned only forty-three years. 
It follows, therefore, that Scripture antedates his reign and computes 
it from B. c. 605. (Clinton, F. H., Vol. I, p. 367.) This might be ex- 
plained by the fact that the Jews acknowledged him as suzerain from 
that date. But it has been overlooked that it is accounted for by the 
Mishna rule of computing regnal years from Nisan to Nisan. In 
B. c. 604, the first Nisan fell on the 1st April, and according to the 
Misfina rule the king's second year would begin on that day, no matter 
how recently he had ascended the throne. Therefore the fourth year 
of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebu€hadnezzar (Jer. 25: 1) was the 
year beginning Nisan b. c. 605; and the third year of Jehoiakim, in 
which Jerusalem was taken and the servitude began, was the year 
beginning Nisan b. c. 606. 

This result is confirmed by Clinton, who fixes the summer of 
B. c. 606 as the date of Nebuchadnezzar's first expedition. And it is 
strikingly confirmed also by a statement in Daniel which is the basis 
of one of the quibbles of the critics: Daniel was kept three years in 
training before he was admitted to the king's presence, and yet he 
interpreted the king's dream in his second year. Dan. 1: 5, 18; 2:1. 
The explanation is simple. While the Jews in Palestine ' computed 
Nebuchadnezzar's reign in their own way, Daniel, a citizen of Babylon 
and a courtier, of course accepted the reckoning in use around him. 
But as the prophet was exiled in b. c. 606, his three years' probation 
ended in b. c. 603, whereas the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, reck- 
oned from his actual accession, extended to the early months of b. c. 602. 

Again: the accession of Evil-Merodach was in b. c. 561, and the 
thirty-seventh year of the captivity was then current. 2 Kings 25: 27. 
Therefore the captivity dated from the year Nisan 598 to Nisan 597. 
But this was (according to Jewish reckoning) the eighth year of Nebu- 
chadnezzar (2 Kings 24: 12). His reign, therefore, dated from the year 
Nisan 605 to Nisan 604. And the first siege of Jerusalem and the 
beginning of the servitude was in the preceding year, 606-605. — *' Daniel 
in the Critics' Den," Sir Robert Anderson, K. G. B., LL. D., pp. 153-157. 
London: James Nisbet & Co., 1902. 

Daniel, Book of, Uis^ity and Genuineness of. — The question really 
is, whether there is evidence for the unity of the book of Daniel, and 
whether there is evidence for the book being genuine. There is no 
reason to suppose that 'chapter 11 is not an integral portion of the book, 
and there is abundant evidence to show that the book is genuine. This 
being so, therefore, the character of chapter 11 must determine our 
notions of Biblical prophecy, and not our notions of Biblical prophecy 
decide, in the face of the evidence, that Daniel 11 is not genuine. There 
may, however, be much more moral and spiritual interest even in these 
dry details than we at first suppose, if they really are an indication and 
evidence of Grod's tender and presiding care for his people. 

"On the side of the earlier date (i. e., b. c. 570-536), the external 
arguments are as follows: 

"(a) The assertion of Josephus (Ant., xi, 8) that Jaddua showed 
to Alexander the predictions of his conquests in the book of Daniel. 
But the doubt which rests over the story generally, and the acknowl- 
edged incorrectness of some of its details (see Dr. Westcott in Diction- 
ary of the Bible — 'Alexander,' and Lecture xlvii) deprive this allu- 
sion of serious v\^eight; and it is difficult not to suspect something of 
an apologetic tone in Josephus (Ant., x, 11, 7). ' Methinks the historian 
doth protest too much.' " 



DANIEL, BOOK OF 157 

It is remarkable that in the article of Westcott here referred to, he 
says, " But admitting the incorrectness of the details of the tradition 
as given by Josephus, here are several points which confirm the truth 
of the main fact. . . . Above all, the privileges which Alexander is said 
to have conferred upon the Jews, including the remission of tribute 
every sabbatical year, existed in later times, and imply some such 
relation between the Jews and the great conqueror as Josephus de- 
scribes. Internal evidence is decidedly in favor of the story, even in 
its picturesque fulness." 

It must not be forgotten, moreover, that Josephus was in no way 
concerned to maintain the genuineness of Daniel, seeing that Porphyry 
had not yet denied it. He is therefore, so far, a purely independent 
witness; does not "protest" at all, but only testifies without design, to 
the undoubted esteem in which the book was held by his own nation and 
in his own time. In this respect there cannot well be higher testimony 
of that age; and it is inconceivable that a book which first started into 
existence b. c. 165 should have acquired the renown which led Josephus 
to say of it, "We believe that Daniel conversed with God; for he did 
not only prophesy of future events, as did the other prophets, but he 
also determined the time of their accomplishment; and while the 
prophets used to foretell misfortunes, and on that account were disagree- 
able both to kings and to the multitude, Daniel was to them a prophet 
of good things, and this to such a degree that, by the agreeable nature 
of his predictions, he procured the good will of all men; and by the 
accomplishment of them he procured the belief of their truth, and the 
opinion of a sort of divinity for himself among the multitude." Is it 
likely that the whole nation could have been so deceived by an unknown 
writer who palmed off upon them his previously unknown production 
under the name of a man otherwise almost unknown in b. c. 165? . . . 

It is only too obvious that men disparage the genuineness of Daniel 
because of the startling and stupendous narratives it contains. If the 
book can be reasonably supposed tO' be of doubtful authority, then it is 
a simple matter dealing with the marvels recorded, because then they 
become doubtful too. Miracle and prophecy are alike relegated to the 
haze of the impalpable obscure, and we are left in the suspense of inde- 
cision and the uncertainty of pious sentiment. Whereas, if Daniel is 
genuine and authentic, then the whole question of the supernatural in 
prophecy and miracle is determined once for all in a startling and con- 
clusive manner — a consummation by no means to be desired, or, if 
probable, to be endured [by the higher critics]. . . . 

It cannot be denied that externally there is no evidence wliatever of 
a positive kind against the genuineness of Daniel. What indications 
there are — for they cannot be called evidence — ^are of a negative and 
wholly subjective kind. For instance, the omission of the name of 
Daniel in Ecclesiasticus, though strange, can be otherwise accounted 
for than by supposing the book not then known; and if 17: 17 implies 
a knowledge of Daniel, as it certainly may do, it of course effectually 
disposes of the argument from, and counterbalances this omission. The 
book of Baruch, which is probably as old as, if no older than, the late 
date assigned to Daniel, bears evidence of acquaintance with that book. 
(See Pusey, p. 361. i) On the other hand, the positive evidence of Jose- 
phus being of a purely spontaneous character, as it clearly is, — for he 
could have had no motive in saying what he said, since he held no 
brief for Daniel more than any other book of Scripture, — is very strong 

^ The reference here is to Dr. Pusey's appeal to the book of Baruch to show- 
that the book of Daniel could not have been written in or subsequent to the time 
of the Maccabees. — Eds. 



158 DANIEL, BOOK OF 

as evidence of what was and had been the current opinion of the nation. 
How could he or any one have supposed that the conquests of Alexander 
the Great had been predicted in Daniel if the book was of the time of 
the Maccabees? and even if his story about Jaddua is fabricated, what 
would it have had to rest on if not this general belief? — he could not 
have fabricated that. 

It will be seen, therefore, that the " arguments " above spoken of, 
when examined, are virtually insubstantial; and this being so, their 
" collective weight " cannot be of any consideration in itself, and still 
less can it lend additional weight to " each argument singly." We can 
only conclude that the evidence against the Maccabean origin of Daniel 
is of an objective character, while the presumptions for it are wholly 
subjective. 

With regard to the other point, that no parallel instance of detailed 
prophecy can be adduced from Scripture, this must depend wholly upon 
our previous verdict on the date of Scripture. If we adopt revolution- 
ary notions about the books, we shall then be careful to make facts 
bend accordingly; but it must be allowed without now going into these 
questions, that, taking them as they appear, pri7na facie, we find the 
time of sojourn in Egypt was foretold to Abraham, and that this fact 
was known and remembered at the time of the exodus, and was appealed 
to, notwithstanding the patent discrepancy on the surface of the nar- 
rative; that the destruction of the builder of Jericho was foretold, and 
likewise the desolation of Jeroboam's altar, with the name of the king 
who should accomplish the overthrow of his unauthorized worship; that 
the name of Cyrus as the king who was to lay the foundation of the 
temple was twice foretold by Isaiah; and that many of the latter 
prophecies of Zechariah are hardly less definite than those of Daniel. 
At all events, in these instances we have examples of the kind of proph- 
ecy that astonishes us in Daniel, although there can be no doubt that 
in him it reaches its climax. To me it seems absolutely certain that 
there are specimens of prophecy in its predictive aspect in Daniel that 
no special pleading can set aside or explain; and this being so, it is 
merely a matter of degree whether we acknowledge more or less. 

It is clear, however, when we take into consideration the several 
instances named above, we must either admit the force of the cumulative 
evidence for prophecy, or must suppose that the several books in which 
these predictions occur were so arranged and modified for the express 
purpose of presenting that appearance of prophecy which as a matter of 
fact they do present. Is this consistent, we may ask, not with some 
particular theory of inspiration, but with the acknowledgment of any 
such authentication of the Scripture record as would show it to be the 
medium of a veritable revelation gliven and not invented? As Dr. West- 
cott says, " ' Revelation,' however communicated, is itself a miracle, 
and essentially as inconceivable as any miracle." Is there any evidence 
that such a revelation has been given and preserved, or is the idea 
essentially erroneous, and as such to be discarded? To me it seems that 
the Bible as a fact is the permanent obstacle to so discarding it. " The 
general style of Biblical prophecy " is, per se, as little to be accounted 
for, if it means what it says, as any actual prediction would be. Befor-e 
we can implicitly trust any single declaration of Scripture as an author- 
ized, and therefore reliable, assertion, — such, for example, as God is 
love, — we must admit the possibility of such knowledge being so com- 
municated as to be thereby authorized; but no sooner is this done than 
it becomes logically conceivable that the method of communication se- 
lected for conveying revelation might embrace the agencies of miracle 
and prophecy; and whether or not this has been the case must be 



DIETS, ORIGIN AND NATURE OF 159 

determined by evidence; but if we do not shut our eyes to the evidence 
for the genuineness of Daniel, which is not fairly to be set aside, we 
must admit the operation of prophecy in its predictive aspect there. — 
" Old Testament Prophecy," Rev. Stanley Leathes, D. D., pp. 268-274. 
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1880. 

Decretal Letters, Obigin of. — Another practice commenced by 
Syricius, the immediate successor of Damasus, contributed greatly to 
augment the influence of the Roman See. This was the writing of let- 
ters purporting to be expositions of church law. The first of these doc- 
uments, known as the Decretal Epistles, was promulgated by Syricius 
in the very beginning of his episcopate. A letter had reached Rome 
from Himerius, a Spanish bishop, soliciting instruction on various 
points of ecclesiastical discipline. Damasus, to whom it was addressed, 
was now dead; but his successor submitted the communication to a 
meeting of his colleagues assembled, probably, on the occasion of his 
ordination; and, in a long reply, dictated with an air of authority, 
Syricius gave specific directions in reference to the several questions 
suggested by this Spanish correspondent. One of the inquiries of Hime- 
rius related to the propriety of clerical celibacy; and it is somewhat 
remarkable that the earliest decretal letter contains an injunction " for- 
bidding to marry." — " The Old Catholic Church" W. D. Killen, D. D., 
p. 34B. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871. 

Diets, Origin of.- — The origin of the diet, or deliberative assembly. 
of the Holy Roman Empire must be sought in the placitum of the 
Frankish Empire. . . . The imperial diet (Reichstag) of the Middle 
Ages might sometimes contain representatives of Italy, the regnum 
Italicum; but it was practically always confined to the magnates of 
Germany, the regnum Teutonicum. Upon occasion a summons to the 
diet might be sent even to the knights, but the regular members were 
the princes (Fiirsten), both lay and ecclesiastical. . . . The powers of the 
medieval diet extended to matters like legislation, the decision upon 
expeditions (especially the expeditio Romana), taxation, and changes in 
the constitution of the principalities or the empire. The election of the 
king, which was originally regarded as one of the powers of the diet, 
had passed to the electors by the middle of the thirteenth century. — 
The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. VIII, art. ''Diet," pp. 211, 212, 11th 
edition. 

Diets, Nature of. — Great political affairs were settled at the diets. 
These constituted the center of legislation and general administration. 
Here was the imperial tribunal, and here the ban of the empire was 
pronounced, which latter was the political counterpart of ecclesiastical 
excommunication. Thus the imperial constitution was, to quote from 
Ranke, " a mixture of monarchy and confederation, the latter element, 
however, manifestly predominating." One evidence that such was the 
fact is furnished by the great importance of the imperial cities: these, 
like the princes, sent their envoys to the diets, and, conjointly with 
the former, opposed a compact corporation to the power of the emperor. 
— " History of the Reformation," Dr. K. R. Hagenhach, Vol. I, p. 31. 
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1878. 

Diets of Worms. — Worms, Diets of, were meetings of the repre- 
sentatives of the old German Empire which met at Worms. In 1495 
the emperor asked for the aid of the empire for an expedition to Italy, 
and agreed to allow the proclamation of a perpetual public peace in 
consideration of the establishment of a tax, called the common penny, 



160 DONATISTS, SCHISM OF 

upon all property, and of a poll tax. The diet also recognized the Im- 
perial Cameral Court, which was to have supreme jurisdiction in cases 
between the states of the empire, and power to pronounce the ban of 
the empire. 

In 1521 a still more famous diet met here. It had to consider: 
(1) Measures to stop private war; (2) the appointment of a govern- 
ment during the emperor's (Charles V) absence in Spain; (3) the atti- 
tude to be adopted toward Luther; (4) the French war; (5) the suc- 
cession to the hereditary dominions of the Hapsburg house in Germany. 
The Edict of Worms was issued by the diet which met in 1521. The 
Pope had issued a bull against Luther, who came to Worms under a 
safe-conduct, but refused to recant. On April 19, 1521, Charles V de- 
clared him a heretic, and in May the diet condemned him and his party. 

— Nelson's Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. " Worms," pp. 641, 642. 

Donatists, Schism of. — The Donatists were the first Christians who 
separated from the church on the ground of discipline. The church had 
hitherto been rent and torn by heresies, such as Gnosticism and Mani- 
chaeism, which had affected doctrines; but the schism of the Donatists 
was due to objections to the discipline of the church, and became the 
parent and pattern of all schisms due to a similar cause. It is impor- 
tant to remember that Donatism was not heresy, as the word is ordina- 
rily understood. All heretics are, in one sense, schismatics, but all 
schismatics are not heretics; and the Donatists themselves protested, 
with justice, against being considered heretics. — "A Dictionary of Chris- 
tian Biography,'' Smith and Wace, Vol. I, art. "Donatism^," p. SSd. 
London: John Murray, 1877. 

Donatists, Origin of Name. — The Donatists were a puritan party, 
very like the Novatianists some fifty years before, who held extreme 
doctrines with reference to those who had lapsed in persecution. They 
took their name first from Donatus of Casa Nigra, who impugned the 
elevation of Caecilian to the bishopric of Carthage in 311, and secondarily 
from a greater Donatus who succeeded Majorinus as schismatic bishop. 

— Id., art. " Constantine the Great and His Sons," p. 639. 

Easter, Chaldean Origin of. — What means the term Easter itself? 
It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very 
forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, 
the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people of Nine- 
veh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this 
country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, > 
is Ishtar. The worship of Bel and Astarte was very early introduced 
into Britain, along with the Druids, " the priests of the groves." 
[p. 103] . . . 

If Baal was thus worshiped in Britain, it will not be difficult to 
belie.ve that his consort Astarte was also adored by our ancestors, and 
that from Astarte, whose name in Nineveh was Ishtar, the religious 
solemnities of April, as now practised, are called by the name of Easter, 
that month, among our pagan ancestors, having been called Easter- 
monath. 

The festival, of which we read in church history under the name 
of Easter, in the third or fourth centuries, was quite a different fes- 
tival from that now observed in the Romish Church, and at that time 
was not known by any such name as Easter. It was called Pasch, or 
the Passover, and though not of apostolic institution, was very early 
observed by many professing Christians, in commemoration of the 
death and resurrection of Christ. That festival agreed originally with 



t^ASTER 161 

the time of the Jewish Passover, when Christ Was crucified, a period 
which, in the days of Tertullian, at the end of the second century, was 
believed to have been the 23d of March. That festival was not idol- 
atrous, and it was preceded by no Lent. " It ought to be known," 
said Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, writing in the fifth century, and 
contrasting the primitive church with the church in his day, " that the 
observance of the forty days had no existence, so long as the perfection 
of that primitive church remained inviolate." Whence, then, came this 
observance? The forty days' abstinence of Lrent was directly borrowed 
from the worshipers of the Babylonian goddess. 

Such a Lent of forty days, " in the spring of the year," is still ob- 
served by the Yezidis, or pagan devil worshipers of Koordistan, who 
have inherited it from their early masters, the Babylonians. Such a 
Lent of forty days was held in spring by the pagan Mexicans, for thus 
we read in Humboldt, where he gives account of Mexican observ- 
ances: "Three days after the vernal equinox . . . began a solemn fast 
of forty days in honor of the sun." Such a Lent of forty days was 
observed in Egypt, as may be seen on consulting Wilkinson's " Egyp- 
tians." This Egyptian Lent of forty days, we are informed by Land- 
seer, in his " Sabaean Researches," was held expressly in commemora- 
tion of Adonis or Osiris, the great mediatorial god. [pp. 104, 105] . . . 

Among the pagans this Lent seems to have been an indispensable 
preliminary to the great annual festival in commemoration of the 
death and resurrection or Tammuz, which was celebrated by alternate 
weeping and rejoicing, and which, in many countries, was considerably 
later than the Christian festival, being observed in Palestine and As- 
syria in June, therefore called the " month of Tammuz; " in Egypt, 
about the middle of May; and in Britain, some time in April. To con- 
ciliate the pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual 
policy, took measures to get the Christian and pagan festivals amalga- 
mated, and by a complicated but skilful adjustment of the calendar, it 
was found no difficult matter, in general, to get paganism and Chris- 
tianity — now far sunk in idolatry — in this as in so many other things, 
to shake hands, [p. 105] . . . 

This change of the calendar in regard to Easter was attended with 
momentous consequences. It brought into the church the grossest 
corruption and the rankest superstition in connection with the ab- 
stinence of Lent. [p. 106] ... 

The difference, in point of time, betwixt the Christian Pasch, as 
observed in Britain by the native Christians, and the pagan Easter 
enforced by Rome, at the time of its enforcement, was a whole month; 
and it was only by violence and bloodshed, at last, that the festival of 
the Anglo-Saxon or Chaldean goddess came to supersede that which had 
been held in honor of Christ, [p. 107] — " The Tioo Babylons,'" Rev. Alex- 
ander Hislop, pp. 103-107, 7th edition. London: S. W. Partridge & Co. 

Easter, Not Appointed by i;he Apostles. — The apostles had no 
thought of appointing festival days, but of promoting a life of blame- 
lessness and piety. And it seems to me that the feast of Easter- has 
been introduced into the church from some old usage, just as many 
other customs have been established. In Asia Minor most people kept 
the fourteenth day of the moon, disregarding the Sabbath; yet they 
never separated from those who did otherwise, until Victor, bishop of 
Rome, influenced by too ardent a zeal, fulminated a sentence of excom- 
munication against the Quartodecimani in Asia. But Irenaeus, bishop 
of Lyons in France, severely censured Victor by letter for his im- 
moderate heat, telling him that although the ancients differed in their 
11 



162 EASTER 

celebration of Easter, they did not depart from intercommunion. Also 
that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who afterward suffered martyrdom 
under Gordian, continued to communicate with Anicetus, bishop of 
Rome, although he himself, according to the usage of his country, kept 
Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, as Eusebius attests in the 
fifth book of his " Ecclesiastical History." While therefore some in 
Asia Minor observed the day above mentioned, others in the East 
kept that feast on the Sabbath indeed, but not in the same month. , . . 

Moreover the Quartodecimani affirm that the observance they main- 
tain was delivered to them by the apostle John, while the Romans and 
those in the western parts assure us that their usage originated with the 
apostles Peter and Paul. Neither of these parties, however, can produce 
any written testimony in confirmation of what they assert. . . . 

The fasts before Easter are differently observed. Those at 
Rome fast three successive weeks before Easter, excepting Saturdays 
and Sundays. The Illyrians, Achaians, and Alexandrians observe a 
fast of six weeks, which they term " the forty days' fast." Others 
commencing their fast from the seventh week before Easter, and fast- 
ing three five days only, and that at intervals, yet call that time 
" the forty days' fast." 

It is indeed surprising that thus differing in the number of days, 
they should both give it one common appellation; but some assign 
one reason for it, and others another, according to their several fan- 
cies. There is also a disagreement about abstinence from food, as well 
as the numbers of days. Some wholly abstain from things that have 
life; others feed on fish only of all living creatures; many, together with 
fish, eat fowl also, saying that, according to Moses, these were likewise 
made out of the waters. Some abstain from eggs, and all kinds of 
fruits; others feed on dry bread only; and others eat not even this; 
while others, having fasted till the ninth hour, afterward feed on any 
sort of food without distinction. And among various nations there are 
other usages, for which innumerable reasons are assigned.^ "A History 
of the Church'' (306-445, a. d.), Socrates, l)ook 6, chap. 22 C Greek Ec- 
clesiastical Historians,'" Vol. Ill, pp. 400-404). London: Samuel Bolster 
& Sons, 1844. 

Easter, Time or Observance or. — The Christians of Asia Minor were 
called Quartodecimans from their custom of celebrating the Pascha 
invariably on the 14th of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish year 
and falling in the springtime. The date might fall on Friday or on 
any of the other days of the week, which fact made no difference in the 
celebration of the paschal feast. For this reason the day of the 
resurrection did not always fall on a Sunday. In the churches of the 
West and also in parts of the East a different custom prevailed. The 
result of these differences 'was that different sections of the church 
might and did observe the Pascha on different dates. Out of this dif- 
ference grew the Paschal Controversies, so-called. The Council of 
Nicsea had for its second object the unification of the date of the 
Christian Pascha, which the Council of Aries (314) had referred to 
as a most desirable thing, " that the Pascha of the Lord should be ob- 
served on one day and at one time throughout the world" (cf. Hefele, 
" Conciliengeschichte," i. 205). The decree of Nicaea fixed as Easter 
Sunday the Sunday immediately following the fourteenth day of the 
so-called paschal moon, which happens on or first after the vernal 
equinox. The vernal equinox invariably falls on March 21. Easter, 
then, cannot occur earlier than March 22, or later than April 25. — The 
'New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious KnowU dge. Vol. IV, art. 
" Easter," p. 44. 



EBIONISM 163 

- Ebionism, Principal Types of. — Ebionism presents itself under 
two principal types, an earlier and a later, the former usually desig- 
nated Ebionism proper or Pharisaic Ebionism, the latter, Essene or 
Gnostic Ebionism. The earlier type is to be traced in the writings of 
Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, etc.; the later in those 
of Epiphanius especially. 

(a) Ebionism Proper. — The term expresses conveniently the opin- 
ions and practices of the descendants of the Judaizers of the apos- 
tolic age, and is very little removed from Judaism. Judaism was to 
therh not so much a preparation for Christianity, as an institution eter- 
nally good in itself, and but slightly modified in Christianity. What- 
ever merit Christianity possessed, was possessed as the continuation 
and supplement of Judaism. The divinity of the old covenant was 
the only valid guaranty for the truth of the new. Hence the tendency 
of this class of Ebionites to exalt the old at the expense of the new, 
to magnify Moses and the prophets, and to allow Jesus Christ to be 
"nothing more than a Solomon or a Jonas" (Tertullian de Game 
Ghristi, c. 18). Legal righteousness was to them the highest type of 
perfection; the earthly Jerusalem, in spite of its destruction, was an 
object of adoration "as if it were the house of God" (Irenseus, I. c.) ; 
its restoration would take place in the millennial kingdom of Messiah, 
and the Jews would return there as the manifestly chosen people of 
God. [p. 25] . . . 

(&) Essene or Gnostic Ebionism. — This, as the name indicates, 
was a type of Ebionism affected by external influences. The character- 
istic features of the ascetic Essenes were reproduced in its practices, 
and the traces of influences more directly mystical and Oriental were 
evident in its doctrines. The fact that Ebionism generally passed 
through different phases at different times renders it, however, diffi- 
cult to define with precision the line which separates Gnostic and Phari- 
saic Ebionism. . . . 

Their principal tenets were as follows: Christianity they identi- 
fied with primitive religion or genuine Mosaism, and as distinguished 
from what they termed accretions to Mosaism, or the post-Mosaic 
developments described in the later books of the Old Testament. . . . 
They accepted the Pentateuch alone among the Old Testament writ- 
ings, and emasculated it, rejecting whatever reflected questionably 
upon their favorites. They held that there were two antagonistic 
powers appointed by God, Christ and devil; to the former was allotted 
the world to come, to the latter the present world. The conception of 
Christ was variously entertained. Some affirmed that he was created 
(not born) of the Father, a spirit, and higher than the angels; that 
he had the power of coming to this earth when he would, and in various 
modes of manifestation; that he had been incarnate in Adam, and had 
appeared to the patriarchs in bodily shape; others identified Adam and 
Christ. In these last days he had come in the person of Jesus. Jesus 
was therefore to them a successor of Moses, and not of higher au- 
thority, [p. 26] . . . 

To the observance of the Jewish Sabbath they added also the ob- 
servance of the Christian Lord's day. Circumcision was sacred to them 
from the practice of the patriarchs and of Jesus Christ; and they de- 
clined all fellowship with the uncircumcised. On the other hand, they 
repudiated the sacrifices of the altar and the reverence of the Jew for 
the temple. In common with the Ebionites proper, they detested St. 
Paul, rejected his epistles, and circulated stories discreditable to him. 
The other apostles were known to them by their writings, to which they 
assigned inferiority in comparison with their own gospeL 



164 EDICT OF MILAN 

It may perhaps be impossible to state precisely when Gnostic 
Ebionism replaced Ebionism proper, just as it is impossible to state 
definitely when Essenism became affected by Gnosticism; but the con- 
jecture appears not improbable that as the siege of Jerusalem udder 
Titus gave an impetus to Ebionism proper, so the ruin under Hadrian 
developed Gnostic Ebionism. Not that Gnosticism began then to affect 
it for the first time, but that Gnostic ideals hitherto held in solution 
were precipitated and found a congenial home among men who through 
contact with Oriental systems in Syria were already predisposed to 
accept them. The Essene Ebionite in accepting Gnosticized Chris- 
tianity brought to it the customs to which he was most attached. — " A 
Dictionary of Christian Biography" Smith and Wace, Vol. II, art. 
'^Ebionism and EHonites," pp. 25-27. London: John Murray, 1880. 

Edict of Milan, a. d. 313. — As we long since perceived that religious 
liberty should not be denied, but that it should be granted to the opinion 
and wishes of each one to perform divine duties according to his own 
determination, we had given orders that each one, and the Christians 
among the rest, have the liberty to observe the religion of his choice 
and his peculiar mode of worship. And as there plainly appeared to 
be many and different sects added in that edict,^ in which this privilege 
was granted them, some of them, perhaps, after a little while, on this 
account shrunk from this kind of attention and observance. Where- 
fore, as I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, came under 
favorable auspices to Milan, and took under consideration all affairs 
that pertained to the public benefit and welfare, these things among 
the rest appeared to us to be most advantageous and profitable to all. 

We have resolved among the first things to ordain those matters 
by which reverence and worship to the Deity might be exhibited; that 
is, how we may grant likewise to the Christians, and to all, the free 
choice to follow that mode of worship which they may wish, that 
whatsoever divinity and celestial power may exist may be propitious to 
us and to all that live under our government. Therefore, we have 
decreed the following ordinance, as our will, with a salutary and most 
correct intention, that no freedom at all shall be refused to Christians, 
to follow or to keep their observances or worship; but that to each one 
power be granted to devote his mind to that worship which he may 
think adapted to himself, that the Deity may in all things exhibit to 
us his accustomed favor and kindness. It was just and consistent that 
we should write that this was our pleasure, that all exceptions respect- 
ing the Christians being completely removed, which were contained in 
the former epistle that we sent to your fidelity, and whatever measures 
were wholly sinister and foreign to our mildness, that these should be 
altogether annulled; and now that each one of the Christians may freely 
and without molestation, pursue and follow that course of worship 
which he has proposed to himself: which, indeed, we have resolved to 
communicate most fully to your care and diligence, that you may know 
we have granted liberty and full freedom to the Christians, to observe 
their own mode of worship; which as your fidelity understands ab- 
solutely granted to them by us, the privilege is also granted to others 
to pursue that worship and religion they wish, which it is obvious 



1 The edict here mentioned is lost, and the reference is, therefore, subject 
to some obscurity. The Latin original, however, of this one is preserved by 
Lactantius, in his book " De Mortibus Persecutorum/' beginning at the words, 
" Wherefore, as I, Constantine." Valesius here, as well as in the other edicts, 
has no reference to Lactantius. The Greek translation is in the main so 
faithful as to transfer the Latinity ; the text, however, still preserved in Lac- 
tantius, differs in some places from that which Eusebius seems to have had. — 
The Translator, Rev. C. F. Cruse, D. D, 



EDOM, EXTENT OF 165 

is consistent with the peace and tranquillity of our times; that each 
may have the privilege to select and to worship whatsoever divinity 
he pleases. But this has been done by us, that we might not appear in 
any manner to detract anything from any manner of religion or any 
mode of worship. 

And this we further decree, with respect to the Christians, that the 
places in which they were formerly accustomed to assemble, concerning 
which we also formerly wrote to your fidelity, in a different form, that 
if any persons have purchased these, either from our treasury or from 
any other one, these shall restore them to the Christians, without 
money and without demanding any price, without any superadded 
value, or augmentation, without delay or hesitancy. And if any have 
happened to receive these places as presents, that they shall restore 
them as soon as possible to the Christians, so that if either those that 
purchased or those that received them as presents, have anything to 
request of our munificence, they may go to the provincial governor, as 
the judge, that provision may also be made for them by our clemency; 
all which, it will be necessary to be delivered up to the body of Chris- 
tians, by your care, without any delay. 

And since the Christians themselves are known to have had not 
only those places where they were accustomed to meet, but other places 
also, belonging not to individuals among them, but to the right of the 
whole body of Christians, you will also command all these, by virtue 
of the law before mentioned, without any hesitancy, to be restored to 
these same Christians, that is, to their body, and to each conventricle re- 
spectively; the aforesaid consideration, to wit, being observed; namely, 
that they who as we have said restore them without valuation and price, 
may expect their indemnity from our munificence and liberality. 

In all which it will be incumbent on you to manifest your exertions, 
as much as possible, to the aforesaid body of Christians, that our 
orders may be most speedily accomplished, that likewise in this pro- 
vision may be made by our clemency, for the preservation of the common 
and public tranquillity. For by these means, as beforesaid, the divine 
favor with regard to us, which we have already experienced in many 
affairs, will continue firm and permanent at all times. But that the 
purpose of this our ordinance and liberality may be extended to the 
knowledge of all, it is expected that these things written by us should 
be proposed and published to the knowledge of all, that this act of our 
liberality and kindness may remain unknown to none. — Edict of Con- 
stantine (and Licinius ?), A. D. 313; cited in ''An Ecclesiastical His- 
tory," Eusebius, hook 10, chap. 5 C Greek Ecclesiastical Historians," 
Yol. II, pp. 430-433). London: Samuel Bagster d Sons, 1847. (See also 
"The Library of Original Sources," Vol. IV, pp. 19, 20.) 

Edom, Extent of. — That the name " Bdom," in its Greek form 
" Idumea," extended over the upper desert south of Palestine in the 
later centuries before the Christian era, and subsequently, is abundantly 
shown by references to it in the Apocrypha, the Talmud, and the writ- 
ings of Pliny, Josephus, Ptolemy, Jerome, and others. Diodorus Siculus, 
indeed, speaks of the Dead Sea as in the center of the satrapy of Idumea. 
And as has been already noted, all the geographers down to the days of 
Reland were at one on this point. So far there is no dispute. The only 
question raised by any scholar is, whether the* westward stretch of 
Edom beyond the 'Arabah was prior to the period of Judah's captivity. 
Yet not a particle of evidence is to be found in favor of the westward 
limitation of ancient Edom by the bounds of the 'Arabah, at any 
period whatsoever; while both the Bible text and the Egyptian records 



166 EGYPT 

give proof that there was no such limitation in the days of the con- 
quest of Canaan. 

As yet, the precise limits of ancient Edom, westward, cannot be 
designated with confidence. It is probable, judging from what we know 
of ancient boundaries generally, that these limits were conformed to 
some marked natural features of the country. When the Azazimeh, or 
Muqrah, mountain tract shall have been carefully explored, such 
natural features may be there shown for the marking of the western 
border of Edom, as have already been pointed out for the southern 
border of Canaan. — " Eadesh-Barnea" H. Clay TrumhuU, D. D., pp. 
100, 101. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1884. 

Egypt, Israel in, Bricks Without Straw. — It lends additional 
interest to the discovery of Pithom that the city is found to be built 
almost entirely of brick. It was in brickmaking that the Israelites are 
said in the book of Exodus (chap. 1: 14; 5: 7-19) to have been principally 
employed. They are also said to have been occupied to some extent " in 
mortar" (chap. 1: 14); and the bricks of the store chambers of Pithom 
are " laid with mortar in regular tiers." They made their bricks " with 
straw " until no straw was given them, when they were reduced to 
straits (chap. 5: 7-19). It is in accordance with this part of the narra- 
tive, and sheds some additional light upon it, to find that the bricks 
of the Pithom chambers, while generally containing a certain amount 
of straw, are in some instances destitute of it. The king's cruelty 
forced the Israelites to produce in some cases an inferior article. — 
''Egypt and Bahylon,"" George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 147. New York: 
John B. Alden, 1885. 

Egypt, Exodus, Testimony oe Manetho Concerning. — The exodus 
of the Jews was an event which could scarcely be omitted by Manetho. 
It was one however of such a nature — so entirely repugnant to all 
the feelings of an Egyptian — that we could not expect a fair repre- 
sentation of it in their annals. And accordingly, our fragments of 
Manetho present us with a distinct but very distorted notice of the 
occurrence. The Hebrews are represented as leprous and impious Egyp- 
tians, who under the conduct of a priest of Heliopolis, named Moses, 
rebelled on account of oppression, occupied a town called Avaris, or 
Abaris, and having called in the aid of the people of Jerusalem, made 
themselves masters of Egypt, which they held for thirteen years; but 
who were at last defeated by the Egyptian king, and driven from 
Egypt into Syria. We have here the oppression, the name Moses, the 
national name, Hebrew, under the disguise of Abaris, and the true di- 
rection of the retreat; but we have all the special circumstances of the 
occasion concealed under a general confession of disaster; and we have 
a claim to final triumph which consoled the wounded vanity of the 
nation, but which we know to have been unfounded. On the whole, we 
have perhaps as much as we could reasonably expect the ailnals of the 
Egyptians to tell us of transactions so little to their credit; and we 
have a narrative fairly confirming the principal facts, as well as very 
curious in many of its particulars. — " The Historical Evidences of the 
Truth of the Scripture Records,'" George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 74. New 
York: John B. Alden, 1883. 

Egypt, Menephthah. — What, then, does profane history tell us of 
the Menephthah whom we have shown to be at once the traditional 
" Pharaoh of the exodus " and the king pointed out by chronological 
considerations as the ruler of Egypt at the period? M. Lenormant 
Jbegins his account of him by observing, " Moreover, he was neither a 



EGYPT 167 

soldier nor an administrator, but one whose mind was turned almost 
exclusively toward the chimeras of sorcery and magic, resembling in 
this respect his brother, Kha-m-uas." " The book of Exodus," he adds, 
" is in the most exact agreement with historical truth when it depicts 
him as surrounded by priest-magicians, with whom Moses contends in 
working prodigies, in order to affect the mind of the Pharaoh." — 
''Egypt and Babylon" George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 142. New YorJc: 
John B. Aldem, 1885. 

Egypt, The Horses of. — Among the changes in manners and cus- 
toms belonging to the Middle Empire, there is one which cannot be 
gainsaid — the introduction of the horse. The horse, which is wholly 
absent from the remains, written or sculptured, of the Old Empire, ap- 
pears as well known and constantly employed in the very earliest 
records of the New, and must consequently have made its appearance in 
the interval. . Hence it has been argued by those best acquainted with 
the ancient remains that the military successes of the Hyksos, and 
especially their conquest of Egypt, were probably the result to a con- 
siderable extent of their invading the country with a chariot force and 
with cavalry at a time when the Egyptians fought wholly on foot. 
Neither horses nor chariots, nor even carts, were known under the 
Pharaohs of the Old Empire; they were employed largely from the 
very beginning of the New Empire, the change having been effected by 
the empire which occupied the intervening space, [pp. 127, 128] . . . 

The contrast between the Egypt of Abraham's time and that of the 
time of Joseph in respect of horses has often been noticed. As the ab- 
sence of horses from the list of the presents made to Abraham (Gen. 
12: 16) indicates with sufficient clearness the time of the Old Empire, so 
the mention of horses, chariots, and wagons in connection with Joseph 
(chap. 41: 43; 46: 29; 47: 17; 50: 9) makes his time either that of the 
Middle Empire or the New. The fact that the possession of horses does 
not seem to be as yet very common, points to the Middle Empire as 
the more probable of the two. — Id., pp. 127-129. 

Egypt, Time of Joseph's Visit to. — The time of Joseph's visit to 
Egypt is variously given by chronologers. Archbishop Usher, whose 
dates are followed in the margin of the English Bible, as published by 
authority, regards him as having resided in the country from b. c. 1729 
to B. c. 1635. Most other chronologers place his sojourn earlier: Stuart 
Poole, from b. c. 1867; Clinton, from b. c. 1862 to b. c. 1770; Hales, from 
B. c. 1886 to B, c, 1792. Even the latest of these dates would make his 
arrival anterior to the commencement of the New Empire, which was 
certainly not earlier than b. c. 1700. If we add to this the statement of 
George the Syncellus, that all writers agreed in making him the prime 
minister of one of the shepherd kings, we seem to have sufficient 
grounds for the belief that the Egypt of his time was that of the Middle 
Empire, or Hyksos, an Asiatic people who held Egypt in subjection for 
some centuries before the great rising under Aahmes, which re-estab- 
lished a native dynasty upon the old throne of the Pharaohs. — Id., p. 123. 

Egypt, Sun Worship in. — Ra was the Egyptian sun god, and was 
especially worshiped at Heliopolis. Obelisks, according to some, repre- 
sented his rays, and were always, or usually, erected in his honor. 
Heliopolis was certainly one of the places which were thus adorned, for 
one of the few which still stand erect in Egypt is on the site of that 
city. The kings for the most part considered Ra their special patron 
and protector; nay, they went so far as to identify themselves with 



168 ENCYCLrlCALS 

him, to use his titles as their own, and to adopt his name as the ordi- 
nary prefix to their own names and titles. This is believed hy many 
to have been the origin of the word Pharaoh, which was, it is thought, 
the Hebrew rendering of Ph' Ra, " the sun." Ra is sometimes repre- 
sented simply by a disk colored red, or by such a disk with the ankh, or 
symbol of life, attached to it; but more commonly he has the figure of a 
man, with a hawk's head, and above it the disk, accompanied by plumes 
or by a serpent. The beetle (scarabaeus) was one of his emblems. As for 
his titles, they are too numerous to mention; the " Ditany of Ra," 
alone contains some hundreds of them. — " The Religions of the Ancient 
World,'' George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 20. I^ew York: Hurst & Co. 

Egypt, Phakaoh of the Bxodits. — The Pharaoh under whom, the 
exodus actually took place could not have been Ramses II himself, but 
his son and successor, Meneptah II, who ascended the throne about b. c. 
1325. His reign lasted but a short time, and it was disturbed not 
only by the flight of the children of Israel, but also by a great invasion 
of northern Egypt by the Libyans, which was with diflficulty repulsed. 
This took place in his fifth year. — " Fresh Light from the Ancient 
Monuments,'' A. H. Sayce, M. A., pp. 60, 61. London: The Religious 
Tract Society, 1890. 

Elam, Persia. — The name of Elam has first received its explanation 
from the decipherment of the Assyrian texts. It was the nam© of the 
mountainous region to the east of Babylonia, of which Shushan, or Susa, 
was at one time the capital, and is nothing more than the Assyrian 
word eiam, " high." Elam was itself a translation of the Accadian 
Numma, under which the Accadians included the whole of the high- 
lands which bounded the plain of Babylonia on its eastern side. It was 
the seat of an ancient monarchy which rivaled in antiquity that of 
Chaldea itself, and was long a dangerous neighbor to the latter. It was 
finally overthrown, however, by Assur-bani-pal, the Assyrian king, about 
B. c. 645. The native title of the country was Anzan or Ansan, and the 
name of its capital, Susan or Shushan, seems to have signified " the old 
town" in the language of its inhabitants. — Id., pp. 40, 41. 

Encyclical, Definition of. — According to its etymology, an encycli- 
cal (from the Greek iyKiJKXios, k^kXos [enJcuklios, kuklos"], meaning a 
circle) is nothing more than a circular letter. In modern times, usage 
has confined the term almost exclusively to certain papal documents 
which differ in their technical form from the ordinary style of either 
bulls or briefs, and which in their superscription are explicitly ad- 
dressed to the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops of the 
universal church in communion with the apostolic see. By exception, 
encyclicals are also sometimes addressed to the archbishops and bish- 
ops of a particular country. . . . From the nature of the case, en- 
cyclicals addressed to the bishops of the world are generally concerned 
with matters which affect the welfare of the church at large. They 
condemn some prevalent form of error, point out dangers which threaten 
faith or morals, exhort the faithful to constancy, or prescribe remedies 
for evils foreseen or already existent. — The Catholic Encyclopedia, 
Yol. Y, art. " Encyclical,'" p. 413. 

Epistles, Interpretation of Facts Relating to Christ. — It is to 

the epistles that we must first go for an explanation of the facts of 
Christ's person and his relation to God and man. Paul's epistles are 
really of the nature of a confession and manifesto of Christian be- 



ESTHER, BOOK OF 169 

lief. Communities of believers already existed when the apostle di- 
rected to them his earliest letters. In their oral addresses the apostles 
must have been accustomed not only to state facts which were familiar 
to their hearers, but also to draw inferences from them as to the 
meaning of Christ and the great truths centering in his person — his 
incarnation, His death and resurrection (as we may see from the re- 
corded sermons of Peter and Paul in Acts). It is to these facts that 
the epistles appeal. — The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 
edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. II, art. " Creed," p. 741. 

Esther, The Book of. — The Hebrew name for the Persian king 
Ahasuerus is Achashverosh, the Persian is Chshyarsha, and the Baby- 
lonian, Chishiyarsha (var. AkkasiiiyarshiJ. ,It was through the Baby- 
lonian form of the name that the identification of Ahasuerus as Xerxes 
was finally fixed. This one point determined, we are prepared to ex- 
amine the general features of the document in the light of modern dis- 
coveries. The dramatic character of the book of Esther has assigned 
it, in some minds, to the realm of fiction, and has attributed it to some 
author who lived late in the Greek or in the Maccabean era. Little 
more can be done than to ascertain in how far the manners, customs, and 
laws refiected in the book are distinctively Persian and in how far the 
author gives a true picture of the social and political conditions of the 
times of Xerxes. 

The opening verses of the book describe a one-hundred-and-eighty- 
day feast given by the king in the third year (483 b. c.) of his reign. 
His guests were princes and nobles from all his realm, " from India to 
Ethiopia," who came in successive companies for a period of six months, 
to enjoy the favors of the king, to be impressed by the magnificence of 
his court, and to admire the majesty of his imperial person. The real 
purpose of these banquets, however, was to consider and decide on the 
feasibility of another campaign against Greece. The banqueting passion 
of the Persians was insatiate. Some of these feasts had as many as 
15,000 persons present, and cost nearly $100,000. 

At the close of this series of banquets, at which it was decided to 
prepare for another campaign against Greece, a banquet of seven days 
was given the citizens of Susa. Vashti also entertained the women in 
a separate feast of like magnificence. Xerxes' excess at wine confused 
his brain, and he ordered his chamberlains to bring in and exhibit 
before his intoxicated companions the beauty of Queen Vashti. Herodo- 
tus tells us that Macedonian ladies, introduced to a similar banquet in 
Darius' day, were basely insulted. Vashti may have known of this 
event, and so refused. On consulting his chief counselors, Xerxes de- 
cided to suppress such insubordination, and deposed her. This left a 
vacancy in the royal household. During the next four years he was 
busily engrossed in preparing for, and in conducting, that memorable 
campaign against Greece. The affairs of the royal household were in 
the care of underofficers, and the necessary preparations were on foot 
to secure an incumbent for the place of Vashti, whether or not she were 
the chief queen. 

The remaining chief events of the book of Esther are located after 
Xerxes' disastrous campaign against Greece. What more natural than 
that the proud monarch, smarting under his humiliating defeat at the 
hands of the Greek troops, should seek to drown himself in the luxuries 
of his palace? Esther's introduction to him took place {chap. 2: 16) in 
December, 479 b. c. She immediately wins the favor of the king, and is 
made queen instead of Vashti. It is not improbable that Amestris 
during all this time, as stated by Herodotus, was the only legitimate 



170 ESTHER, BOOK OF 

wife, that is, the only one derived from one of the seven royal houses 
specified in Persian law. That Esther was decorated with a royal crown 
is no more noteworthy than that Mordecai, a kind of prime minister, 
should wear such a mark of high honor (chap 8: 15). This promotion 
of Esther was celebrated in true Persian style by " a great feast to all 
his princes and his servants: and he made a release to the provinces, 
and gave gifts, according to the bounty of the king" (chap. 2: 18). 
The defeat of his great expedition, doubtless, militated against the power 
and majesty of the king in the eyes of his subjects. But a wide distri- 
bution of favors such as is here described would do much to restore 
their confidence in his beneficent character. 

The first incident in this dramatic story that is especially illumi- 
nated by the discoveries a,t Susa, is Haman's method of fixing a date 
for the destruction of the Jews. Strange to tell, M. Dieulafoy found in 
the mound at Susa one of the dice that were used in Persia to determine 
events. It is a quadrangular prism, on the quadrangular faces of which 
are engraved: one, two, five, six. Throw this die, and it will stop on an 
odd or an even number. A vigorous objection has been made to the 
possibility of the reality of Haman's decree, because of the long interval 
of time which was allowed the Jews before the arrival of the day of 
their execution. On the other hand, this is rather in favor of the genu- 
ineness of the story. A careful test shows that one may throw this die 
even scores of times before it will stop on the desired number. Haman's 
fixing of the date was left entirely to the die. The word for die at Susa 
in that time was Pur; whether or not it was Persian is of no conse- 
quence. The text (chap. 3: 7) says: "They cast Pur, that is, the lot" 
— an explanation added for the Jews, to tell them that it answered the 
same purpose in Susa as " the lot " did among the Jews. The long 
projection into the future of the massacre of the Jews was not Haman's 
personal wish, but was the fate fixed for them by the Pur, " the lot." 
[pp. 254-258] ... 

The antiquities brought from Susa to Paris have been deposited in 
two large rooms of the Louvre. On the basis of these finds, M. Dieu- 
lafoy has not only set up various parts of the palace, such as the bases 
and capitals of the columns in their natural size, but has made a model, 
on the basis of the best information, of the great palace of Artaxerxes. 
The throne-room was made by thirty-six fiuted columns, sixty-seven feet 
in height, supporting a flat cedar-wood roof brought from Phoenicia. 
These columns were arranged in the form of a square, the two sides 
and back of the room consisting of a solid wall, through which four 
small doorways pierced. Either corner is guarded by a great pylon, 
" composed of two high walls, crowned with battlements, and standing 
at right angles to one another. These pylons form wings at each side 
of the entrance to the central hall, and at each end of the two colonnades 
at the sides." They were built of brick, and were decorated on the 
outside with narrow, perpendicular recesses and projections, and with 
friezes of enameled bricks. These friezes are lions, warriors, or the 
royal bodyguard, and the like, characteristically Persian. In fact, the 
whole structure as restored in the model shows us just the environment 
in which Esther and the other actors in that drama moved about. 

With this picture before us, we can now locate " the king's gate," 
where Mordecai worried the soul of Haman, " the inner court of the 
king's house over against the king's house " (chap. 5:1), where Esther 
appeared unbidden before the king; " the outward court of the king's 
house" (chap. 6: 4), where Haman appeared to request permission to 
hang Mordecai; "the palace garden" (chap, 7: 7), to which the king 



EVOLUTION 171 

retired to cool his anger against Haman — in fact, almost all the fea- 
tures of " Shushan the palace," in which those tragic events took place. 
In view of the extensive revelations made in the mounds of Susa, 
we can assert, at least, that the book of Esther is true to what is known 
of Persian institutions and customs in the times of Xerxes; that the 
so-called improbabilities of the book now reduce themselves to a mini- 
mum, [pp. 259-261] — " The Monuments and the Old Testament,'" Ira 
Maurice Price, Ph. D., pp. 254-261. Philadelphia: American Baptist Pub- 
lication Society, copyright 1907. 

Evolution, Meaning of. — Evolution (or evolutionism) is the view 
that the whole world and all it contains was not established once for 
all, but that it is in a state of perpetual motion and development. 

Scope of the Term. — As a metaphysical theory, evolution is dis- 
tinguished from the doctrine of emanation by the fact that according to 
the latter the primal principle remains unchanged in quantity and 
quality in spite of every efflux and development proceeding from it; 
while according to the theory of development in its logical complete- 
ness, nothing is excluded from the process of development or change, 
not even the original principle itself, if any such is assumed. Another 
point of difference is, that in the doctrine of emanation the development 
proceeds by various stages, from the highest to ever lower stages, 
while evolution works continually toward what is higher and more 
perfect. 

Both these theories, and especially the latter, are opposed to that 
of creation, according to which the whole world and the matter con- 
tained in it are the products of a free and conscious act of God; and 
they are opposed equally to the sort of dualism, in the main Platonic, 
which conceives a permanent world of ideas in contrast with a mutable 
matter still to be formed, and derives the visible phenomena from the 
influence of the former upon the latter. In a narrower biological sense, 
evolution often means the development of organic beings from inor- 
ganic matter, and their further descent from one another. 

In the views of the evolutionistic school two different tendencies are 
to be distinguished. One is teleological, or more broadly organic, which 
deduces motion and change from internal causes or purposes inherent 
in the things subject to the process. This view is found not seldom in 
the older philosophers, and also in the modern, especially the Grerman 
idealists. The other may be called the mechanical, since it ascribes 
the changes to external causes. This is the view chiefly held by modern 
evolutionists. 

The terms " evolution " and " development " in this sense are of 
comparatively recent origin, and when they first make their appearance, 
relate not to the entire universe, but to some special partial process. 
The doctrine, however, which is now meant by them, appears in the early 
stages of Greek philosophy, and traces of it may be found in Oriental 
thought. The terms " evolution " and " evolutionism," though found 
in a partially analogous sense as early as Nicholas of Cusa, and in Leib- 
nitz and other seventeenth and eighteenth century philosophers in a 
sense still nearer to the modern, seem to have gained their full import 
first in England. They are now used also by French and German writ- 
ers, and designate what forms an important, if not the central, point 
in the modern conception of the world. — The New Schaff-Herzog En- 
cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IV, art. "Evolution," p. 229. 

Evolution, A Sign of the Last Days. — The mockers here described 
certainly talk exactly like our modern uniformitarians; for they argue 
that " from the days that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as 



172 EVOLUTION 

they were from the beginning of the creation." They imply that in the 
days of " the fathers " some people were foolish enough to believe dif- 
ferently; but since they " fell asleep," we have learned better. It should 
also be carefully noted that their theory of uniformity stretches back, 
not to the close of creation, but to " the beginning of the creation." 
Plainly, then, creation itself is embraced in their scheme of absolute uni- 
formity; and according to their view all distinction is smoothed out 
between creation and the present perpetuation of the world by second 
causes. How could we ask for a more accurate word-picture of the 
modern popular doctrines of the evolutionists and their characteristic 
methods of reasoning than is here given us by an inspired prophecj 
nearly two thousand years ago? — " Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doc 
trine of Creation," George McCready Price, p. 141. New York: Fleming 
H. Revell Company, copyright 1917. 

Evolution, Not a Scientific Hypothesis. — The marks of a legiti- 
mate hypothesis in science are: "(1) That it must not be inconsistent 
with facts already ascertained or the inferences to which they lead. 

(2) The hypothesis must be of such a character as to admit of verifi- 
cation or disproof, or at least of being rendered more or less probable 
by subsequent investigations. (3) The hypothesis must be applicable 
to the description or explanation of all the phenomena, and, if it as- 
sign a cause, must assign a cause fully adequate to have produced them." 

Now evolution in the anti-theistic forms clearly violates (1) and 

(3) of the above conditions, even as a hypothesis. It violates (1) in 
that it holds that the living comes from the non-living, contrary to the 
other scientific induction that life only can produce life, o'tnne vivum 
ex vivo. In a sense it violates the second condition also, in that it 
assumes unlimited time for the transformation of the non-living into 
the living. It is thus incapable of verification in the time allotted to 
men. It violates (3) in that the hypothesis is not applicable to the de- 
scription of all the phenomena, such, for example, as the psychic, social, 
and moral phenomena of human society. In view of these facts it would 
at least seem to be incumbent upon evolutionists to hold the theory 
with becoming modesty. It is of the nature of a surmise or bold specu- 
lation in its anti-theistic forms, and as yet has not attained to the 
dignity (if the above tests are true) of a scientific hypothesis. — ''Why 
Is Christianity True? " E. Y. Mullins, D. D. LL. D., p. 70. Philadelphia: 
American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. 

Evolution, Not Pkoven and Not Provable. — In the present condi- 
tion of our knowledge and of our methods, one verdict — " Not proven 
and not provable " — must be recorded against all grand hypotheses of 
the palseontologist respecting the general succession of life on the globe. 
— T. H. Huxley, quoted in '* Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of 
Creation,'' George McCready Price, pp. 103, 104. New York: Fleming H. 
Revell Company, copyright 1917. 

What we need to do now is to adopt a true scientific attitude of 
mind, a mind freed from the hypnotizing influence of the current 
theories, in order correctly to interpret the facts as we already have 
them. 

How much of the earth's crust would we have to find in this 
upside down order of the fossils, before we would be convinced that 
there must be so,mething hopelessly wrong with this theory of successive 
ages, which drives otherwise competent observers to throw away their 
common sense and cling desperately to a fantastic theory in the very 
teeth of such facts? 



EVOLUTION 173 

The science of geology as commonly taught is truly in a most as- 
tonishing condition, and doubtless presents the most peculiar mixture 
of fact and nonsense to be found in the whole range of our modern 
knowledge. In any minute study of a particular set of rocks in a 
definite locality, geology always follows facts and common sense; while 
in any general view of the world as a whole, or in any correlation of the 
rocks of one region with those of another region, it 'follows its absurd, 
unscientific theories. But wherever it agrees with facts and common 
sense, it contradicts these absurd theories; and wherever it agrees with 
these theories, it contradicts facts and common sense. That most edu- 
cated people still believe its main thesis of a definite age for each par- 
ticular kind of fossil, is a sad but instructive example of the effects of 
mental inertia, — " Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation," 
George McCready Price, pp. 117, 118. New York: Fleming H. Revell 
Company, copyright 1917. 

Evolution, No Point of Contact with Christianity. — When we 
consider that the evolutionary theory was conceived in agnosticism, and 
born and nurtured in infidelity; that it is the backbone of the destruc- 
tive higher criticism which has so viciously assailed both the integrity 
and authority of the Scriptures; that it utterly fails in explaining — 
what Genesis makes so clear — those tremendous facts in human history 
and human nature, the presence of evil and its attendant suffering; 
that it offers nothing but a negative reply to that supreme question of 
the ages, " If a man die, shall he live again? " that it, in fact, substi- 
tutes for a personal God " an infinite and eternal energy " which is 
without moral qualities or positive attributes, is not wise, or good, or 
merciful, or just; cannot love or hate, reward or punish; that it denies 
the personality of God and man, and presents them, together with na- 
ture, as under a process of evolution which has neither beginning nor 
end; and regards man as being simply a passing form of this universal 
energy, and thus without free will, moral responsibility, or immortal- 
ity, — it becomes evident to every intelligent layman that such a system 
can have no possible points of contact with Christianity. He may well 
be pardoned if he views with astonishment ministers of the gospel still 
clinging to it, and harbors a doubt of either their sincerity or sanity. — 
A Layman, in Herald and Presbyter, Nov. 22, 1911; reprinted in " The 
Fundamentals," Yol. YIII, p. 81. Chicago: Testiynony Publishing Com- 
pany. 

Evolution, Real Peoblem of. — The real problem of evolution in the 
organic kingdom is the genesis and the development of mind as it is 
realized in the individual and has been exercised by the race. Certain 
masters of scientific exposition have written as if the serious problem 
of evolution concerned the origin and succession of living forms. They 
have thought it enough to prove the mutability of species, the parts 
played by the factors of organism and environment in the development 
of the powers that best fitted for success and survival in the struggle 
for life. It has been imagined that we could, by the comparison and 
correlation of forms, exhibit the process of their evolution, or the mode 
and the order in which our planet came to be peopled with the busy 
tribes of flesh and blood. I raise no question as to the mode or as to 
the order; what I do question is, whether a theory as to the evolution 
and the succession of biological forms has any claim to be regarded as 
a theory adequate to the explanation of the facts of the case; i. e., to be 
considered a scientific hypothesis as to how the whole of nature, in- 
clusive of every form and quality of life, came to be. 

The theory may indeed be described as essentially concerned with 
the creational mode rather than with the creational cause; but the 



174 EVOLUTIOIV 

mode cannot exist without the energies or the forces that, operating 
either in the organism or the environment, or in both, accomplish the 
evolution. Indeed, the theory expressly proceeds upon the principle 
that the only forces it knows or reckons with are those called natural, 
though it conceives nature in a strictly limited and exclusive sense. 
While, then, evolution, so far as it is a scientific doctrine, is a theory 
of the creational mode, yet where it is represented as an adequate ac- 
count of the history of life upon this planet, it becomes also a theory 
of the creational cause. The theory is thus philosophical as well as 
scientific; and though the philosophy may be implicit, yet it never 
ceases to be both active and determinative in the science. . . . 

We may say that we understand evolution in the field of organic 
life to mean the emergence of such new organs or such a modification 
of old organs in the struggle for existence as secures the survival of the 
fittest, and through it the development of new species. We need not 
too curiously describe or consider the changes in Darwin's hypothesis 
by later and younger men of science like Weismann. It is enough 
to say that the more the process is simplified, the more complex does it 
require the cause or the sufiicient reason of the movement to be; and 
the more urgent does the demand become that the action of the cause 
be immediate, continuous, universal. — " The Philosophy of the Chris- 
tian Religion," Andrew Martin Fairhairn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., pp. 38, 39. 
New York: George H. Doran Company, copyright 1902. 

Evolution, Some Results of, in Theology. — When we found that 
the world was more than six thousand years old, that there was no uni- 
versal fiood four thousand years ago, that Adam was not made directly 
from dust and Eve from his rib, and that the tower of Babel was not 
the occasion of the diversification of languages, we had gone too far to 
stop. The process of criticism had to go on from Genesis to Revelation, 
with no fear of the curse at the end of the last chapter. It could not 
stop with Moses and Isaiah; it had to include Matthew and John and 
Paul. Every one of them had to be sifted; they had already ceased to 
be taken as unquestioned, final authorities, for plenary inspiration had 
followed verbal inspiration just as soon as the first chapter of Genesis 
had ceased to be taken as true history. The miracles of Jesus had to 
be tested as well as those of Elijah. The date and purpose of the Gospel 
of John had to be investigated historically as well as that of the proph- 
ecy of Isaiah; and the conclusion of historical criticism had to be ac- 
cepted with no regard for the old theologies. We have just reached this 
condition, and there is repeated evidence that it makes an epoch, a revo- 
lution, in theologic thought. . . . 

To this present teaching, which has invaded all our denominations, 
Jesus is the world's prime teacher, but it can assert nothing more. 
There is, it declares, no reasonable proof of his birth from a virgin, no 
certainty of a physical resurrection; the Gospels must be analyzed, for 
they contain mythical elements, non-historical miracles, unverified as- 
sertions. . . . 

But this doubt, even this questioning or denial, changes the old 
evangelistic theology. It questions or denies the Trinity, the resur- 
rection, the sacrifice of the cross, even all miracles, and it undermines 
all authority of inspiration or even revelation, and sends us back to 
human reason, with such divine guidance as may be allowed; the au- 
thority of the Bible and the authority of the church both to be validated 
only by human reason. — The Independent, New York, June 24, 1909. 

Evolution, A Literal Creation Demonstrated. — There is the fur- 
ther conclusion, the only conclusion now possible, if there is no definite 



EVOLUTION 175 

order in which the fossils occur, namely, that life in all its varied 
forms must have originated on the globe by causes not now operative, 
and this creation of all the types of life may just as reasonably have 
taken place all at once, as in some order prolonged over a long period. 
... A strict scientific method may destroy the theory of successive 
ages, and it may show that there has been a great world catastrophe. 
But here the work of strict inductive science ends. It cannot show 
just how or when life or the various kinds of life did originate, it can 
only show how it did not. It destroys forever the fantastic scheme 
of a definite and precise order in which the various types of life 
occurred on the globe, and thus it leaves the way open to say that 
life must have originated by just such a literal creation as is recorded 
in the first chapters of the Bible. But this is as far as it can be 
expected to go. It is strong evidence in favor of a direct and literal 
creation; but it furnishes this evidence by indirection, that is, by 
demolishing the only alternative or rival of creation that can command 
a moment's attention from a rational mind. 

But if life is not now being created from the not-living, if new 
kinds of life are not now appearing by natural process, if above all we 
cannot prove in any way worthy of being called scientific that certain 
types of life lived before others; if, in fine, man himself is found 
fossil and no one fossil can be proved older than another or than that 
of man himself, why is not a literal creation demonstrated as a scien- 
tific certainty for every mind capable of appreciating the force of 
logical reasoning? — " Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of Cre- 
ation," George McCready Price, pp. 123, 124. New York: Fleming H. 
Revell Company, copyright 1917. 

Evolution, Missing Links in. — Evolution has not established its 
principle of continuity. It is not necessary to dwell upon this familiar 
point. It is enough to indicate that the various " links " which were 
missing from the chain in the earlier stages of the discussion of evo- 
lution, have never been fully supplied. Professor Wallace, one of the 
most eminent of modern scientists and an evolutionist, thinks there 
are at least three points in evolution where the continuity is broken. 
We cannot account for the rise of life out of the non-living; nor for 
the introduction of animal sensation and consciousness; nor most of all 
can we explain the higher nature of man. An unseen" spiritual uni- 
verse must be assumed. Professor Wallace thinks, to account for the 
mental, moral, and spiritual powers of man. — " Why Is Christianity 
True?" E. Y. Mullins, D. D., LL. D., p. 63. Philadelphia: American 
Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. 

Evolution, Natural Selection Destructi\^, Not Consteuctive. — 
Natural selection does not and cannot produce new species or varieties 
or cause modifications of living organisms to come into existence. On 
the contrary, its sole function is to prevent evolution. In its action it 
is destructive merely, not constructive, causing death and extinction, 
not life and progression. Death cannot produce life; and though nat- 
ural selection may produce the death of the unfit, it cannot produce 
the fit, far less evolve the fittest. It may permit the fit to survive by 
not killing them olf, if they are already in existence; but it does not 
bring them into being, or produce improvement in them after they have 
once appeared. — Alexander Graham Bell, quoted in " Q. E. D., or New 
Light on the Doctrine of Creation," George McCready Price, p. 81. New 
York: Fleming H. Revell Company, copyright 1917. 

Evolution, The Onion-Coat Theory Unjustifiable. — The first 
and absolutely incontrovertible conclusion is that this theory of sue- 



176 EVOLUTION 

cessive ages must be a gross blunder, in its baleful effects on every 
branch of modern thought deplorable beyond computation. But it is 
now perfectly obvious that the geological distinctions as to age between 
the fossils are fantastic and unjustifiable. No one kind of true fossil 
can be proved to be older or younger than another intrinsically and nec- 
essarily, and the methods of reasoning by which this idea has been sup- 
ported in the past are little else than a burlesque on modern scientific 
methods, and are a belated survival from the methods of the scholastics 
of the Middle Ages. 

Not by any means that all rock deposits are of the same age. The 
lower ones in any particular locality are of course " older " than the 
upper ones, that is, they were deposited first. But from this it by no 
means follows that the fossils contained in these lower rocks came into 
being and lived and died before the fossils in the upper ones. The 
latter conclusion involves several additional assumptions which are 
wholly unscientific in spirit and incredible as matters of fact, one of 
which assumptions is the biological form of the onion-coat theory. But 
since thousands of modern living kinds of plants and animals are found 
in the fossil state, man included, and no one of them can be proved to 
have lived for a period of time alone and before others, we must by 
other methods, more scientific and accurate than the slipshod methods 
hitherto in vogue, attempt to decide as best we can how these various 
forms of life were buried, and how the past and the present are 
connected together. But the theory of definite successive ages, with the 
forms of life appearing on earth in a precise and invariable order, is 
dead for all coming time for every man who has had a chance to ex- 
amine the evidence and has enough training in logic and scientific 
methods to know when a thing is really proved. 

And how utterly absurd for the friends of the Bible to spend their 
time bandying arguments with the evolutionist over such minor details 
as the question of just what geological " age " should be assigned for the 
first appearance of man on the earth, when the evolutionist's major 
premise is itself directly antagonistic to the most fundamental facts 
regarding the first chapters of the Bible, and above all, when this major 
premise is really the weakest spot in the whole theory, the one sore 
spot that evolutionists never want to have touched at all. — " Q. E. D., or 
New Light on the Doctrine of Creation," George McCready Price, pp. 
119, 120. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, copyright 1917. 

Evolution, Tendency to Degeneeate. — It is a universal law of 
living things that all forms left to themselves tend to degenerate. The 
necessity for continuous artificial selection in the sugar beet, in Sea 
Island cotton, in corn, in Jersey and Holstein cattle, in trotting horses, 
proves this universal tendency to degenerate. Natural selection in a 
somewhat similar way tends to postpone this degeneracy by killing off 
the " unfit," but selection either artificial or natural cannot originate 
anything new, and its results are here displayed merely among the small 
fluctuating variations mentioned above. Even among the real genetic 
factors it may show itself by allowing some to survive alone; but as no 
combination of diverse factors can originate anything really new, its 
field for operation among these factors is extremely limited. Among 
species also it is operative, killing off some and allowing others to sur- 
vive. But neither among fluctuations, among factors, nor yet among 
species can selection originate anything new. 

Nor is there any other method known to modern science by means 
of which new factors can be originated which were not potentially la- 
tent in the ancestry. The much-heralded new " species " of De Vries and 



EVOLUTION 17 7 

• 

others are now known to be merely new factors cropping out; for 
though they remain constant and breed true, they obey Mendel's Law 
when crossed with their parental forms, and hence are merely the result 
of some new combination of factors which can be reproduced at will 
by using the same method of combination and segregation. The real 
scientific test for any form supposed to be a new " species " would be 
twofold: (1) to show that some new character had been added which 
no ancestor ever possessed; and (2) to show that this new character 
will breed true under all circumstances of hybridization, and not merely 
segregate as a unit character or mere analytic variety after hybridiza- 
tion. It is almost superfluous to say that no " new species " originating 
in modern times has ever justified itself under these tests, [pp. 94- 
96] . . . 

. Here again we find the record of creation confirmed; for the failure 
of the thousands of modern investigators to originate genuine new 
species proves that in this respect also creation is not now going on. And 
all the analogies from the origin of matter, of energy, of life, and from 
the laws of the reproduction of cells, indicate that we have at last found 
rock bottom truth regarding the vexed question of the origin of species. 
So far as science can observe and record, each living thing on earth, 
in air, in water, reproduces " after its kind." — " Q. E. D., or New Light 
on the Doctrine of Creation,'' George McCready Price, pp. 94>-96, 98. 
New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, copyright 1917. 

Evolution, Development Downward. — It is fashionable to speak 
of primitive man as a savage. The lowest tribes upon earth are 
hunted up and taken as types of human nature, and their fetish or 
something still lower (the expression of horror) is supposed to be 
the faint beginning from which full-blown Christianity has gradually 
been evolved. The Old Testament does not lend itself to this theory, 
nor do the remains of antiquity justify it. The low savage is a de- 
generate and demoralized being. He has developed downward. Prof. 
Max Miiller, in his "Chips" (1. xxiii.), says: 

" If there is one thing which a comparative study of religions 
places in the clearest light, it is the inevitable decay to which every 
religion is exposed. It may seem almost like a truism that no religion 
can continue to be what it was during the lifetime of its founder and 
its first apostle. Yet it is but seldom borne in mind that without con- 
stant reformation, — i. e., without a constant return to its fountainhead, — 
every religion, even the most perfect, nay, the most perfect on account 
of its very perfection more than others, suffers from its contact with 
the world, as the purest air suffers from the mere fact of its being 
breathed." 

The architecture and art of ancient days bears witness to the 
excellent 'gifts possessed by early men. It is diflBcult to see how the 
supposed semianimal savage of prehistoric times became ancestor to 
the astronomer of early Chaldea and to the pyramid builder of ancient 
Egypt. It would seem rather that primeval man was specially gifted 
with originality in its full sense, possessing the instinct to look up to 
the Creator, [pp. 108, 109] ... 

When Prof. Sir W. Ramsay began his study of Greek religion, he 
was a follower of Robertson Smith and M'Lennan, and accepted the 
Totemist theory as the key of truth, but the evidence compelled him 
to change his view. He saw that the modern savage, so far from being 
primitive, represents the last stage of degeneracy. In his " Cities of 
St. Paul " he says: 

" So far as the history of the Mediterranean lands reaches, I find 
only degeneration, corrected from time to time by the infiuence of 
12 



178 EVOLUTION 

great prophets and teachers like Paul. Whether there lies behind this 
historical period a primitive savage period, I am not bold enough or 
skilful enough to judge. I can only look for facts in the light of history, 
I dare not rush into the darkness that lies behind; The primitive 
savage who develops naturally out of the state of totemism into the 
wisdom of Sophocles and Socrates, or he who transforms his fetish 
in the course of many generations through the Elohistic stage into the 
Jehovah of the Hebrews, is unknown to me. I find nothing even re- 
motely resembling him in the savages of modern times. I cannot invent 
for myself a primitive savage of such marvelous potentialities, when I 
find that the modern savage is devoid of any potentiality, in many 
cases unable to stand side by side with a more civilized race, a mere 
worthless degenerate who has lost even his vital stamina; in other 
cases, when he can survive, showing at least no capacity to improve 
except through imitation of external models." [pp. 109, 110] — '' Oid 
Testament Theology and Modern Ideas," R. B. Girdlestone, M. A., pp, 
108-110. London: Longmans, Green <€ Co., 1909. 

Evolution, From Monkeys to Infidels. — Evolution once signified 
the movement of troops, or of a squadron of warships; but it is now 
used to describe the process by which monkeys are changed into 
infidels. Evolution signifies unrolling. You unroll a monar a few mil- 
lions of years, and you have an oyster. You unroll your oyster for 
ages on ages, and you have a tadpole. You unroll your tadpole long 
enough, and you have a monkey; and you unroll your monkey a few 
thousand centuries, and you have an infidel. And this is science! — 
" The Anti-Infidel LiJ)rary," H. L. Hastings, " Was Moses Mistaken? " 
p. 28. Boston: Scriptural Tract Repository, 1893. 

Evolution, Fruits of. — It is rightly considered that the supreme 
test of any doctrine, religious, social, or scientific, is its bearing upon 
life and human action. "Ye shall know them by their fruits." What 
are the fruits of the evolution theory? We cannot help replying that, 
reduced to its last logical conclusion, it lands every one in sheer ag- 
nosticism, — the " gospel of despair," according to Herbert Spencer. 
It was devised by infidels in the interests of infidelity; and it results 
in a point-blank denial of the loving fatherhood of God, which is the 
most fundamental idea of Christianity. The reason every one does 
not reach those barren, cheerless heights — beneath what they are 
pleased to term the " high and dry light of science," but which is, on 
the contrary, the blackness of darkness — is because they are not so 
logical. The evidences of God's loving care and tireless interest in 
them, as revealed in his works or in his Word, have in some measure 
got the better of the merciless logic of their godless theory. 

The majority readily admit that, in the light of their theory, the 
great First Cause must be supremely indifferent to the suffering and 
death of animals, perhaps of men. For during the untold ages the 
fittest have contrived to survive, even for a time, only at the expense of 
their fellows' lives. ... A few of the Christians of the present day 
still accept only that part of the theory which gives us a cooling globe 
and the geological succession of life; while, following the lead of 
Dawson and Dana, they demand a special creation, at least for man. 
They thus avoid the frightful heritage of bestial and savage nature 
which the evolution of man from the lower animals would necessarily 
entail. They cannot altogether forego every memory of an Edenic 
beginning for our race. As for the vast majority of the modern school 
of " Christian " evolutionists, who constantly profess that they can 



EVOLUTION 1?9 

see nothing inconsistent between Christianity and Darwinism, I can 
only pity their crude ideas of the former, and protest in the name of 
my Master against coupling his name with a doctrine so subversive of 
his mission to earth. — " Outlines of Modern Christianity and Modern 
Science," George McCready Price, pp. 234, 235. Oakland, Calif.: Pacific 
Press Publishing Coinpany, copyright 1902. 

Evolution, LoGiCAi. Outcome of. — In the Dark Ages, when the 
Bible was shut away from the people, their ignorance of its truths 
resulted in crime and lawlessness on every side, and in their having 
no protection against their civil and ecclesiastical oppressors. Today, 
the destruction of faith in the Bible by this false science is accomplish- 
ing the same results as the destruction of the Bible itself. On every 
hand we see iniquity abounding, and the people with no care for, or 
knowledge of, their danger from the religio-political combinations now 
forging the chains for their enslavement. 

A world-wide organization or combination for the salvation of 
society as a mass, which must result in a religio-political despotism, 
is the logical outcome of the evolution theory; its triumph is only a 
question of time; and its strength and universality when established 
can be estimated only by the popularity of the teaching which for a 
half century has been preparing the world for just such a state of 
things, by teaching that the struggle for existence is the normal and not 
an abnormal condition of society; that man has developed from the 
lowest beginnings through this process, and can therefore complete the 
work of self-regeneration and purification without any outside " super- 
natural " help, or " restitution of all things." — " God's Two Books," 
George McCready Price, pp. 37, 38. Washington, D. C: Review and 
Herald Publishing Association, 1911. 

Evolution, The' Doctkine of Creation Established. — Both matter 
and energy seem now to be at a standstill, so far as creation is con- 
cerned, no means being known to science whereby the fixed quantity 
of both with which we have to deal in this world can be increased (or 
diminished) in the slightest degree. 

The origin of life is veiled in a mist that science has not dispelled 
and does not hope to dispel. By none of the processes that we call nat- 
ural can life now be produced from the not-living. 

Unicellular forms can come only from pre-existing cells of the 
same kind; and even the individual cells of a multicellular organism, 
when once differentiated, reproduce only other cells after their own 
kind. 

Species of plants and animals have wonderful powers of variation; 
but these variations seem to be regulated and predestined in accordance 
with definite laws, and in no instance known to science has this varia- 
tion resulted in producing what could properly be called a distinct 
new kind of plant or animal. 

Geology has been supposed to prove that there has been a long suc- 
cession of distinct types of life on the globe in a very definite order 
extending through vast ages of time. This is now known to be a mis- 
take. Most living forms of plants and animals are also found as fossils; 
but there is no possible way of telling that one kind of life lived and 
occupied the world before others, or that one kind of life is intrinsically 
older than any other or than the human race. 

In view of such facts as these, what possible chance is there for a 
scheme of organic evolution? 

Must we not say that every possible form of the development theory 
is hereby ruled out of court? There can be no thought of the gradual 



180 EVOLUTION 

development of organic nature by everyday processes in a world where 
such facts prevail. Rather must we say, with the force of the accumu- 
lated momentum of all that has been won by modern science, that, in- 
stead of the animals and plants on our world having arisen by a long- 
drawn-out process of change and development of one kind into another, 
there must have been just such a literal creation at the beginning as 
the Bible describes. As we stand with uncovered head and bowed 
form in the presence of this great truth, it would seem almost like 
sacrilege to attempt by rhetoric to adorn it. Its inevitableness, its 
majesty, its transcendent importance for our generation, would only be 
obscured by so doing. 

The essential idea of the evolutionary theory is uniformity. It 
seeks to show that the present orders of plant and animal life originated 
by causes or processes identical with those now said to be operating in 
our modern world. It denies that at any particular time in the past, 
causes and processes were in operation to originate the present order 
of nature, which were essentially different from the processes now 
operating in our world under what we call natural law. Evolution seeks 
to smooth out all distinction between creation and the modern regime 
of " natural law." 

On the other hand, the essential idea of the Christian doctrine of 
creation is that, back at a period called " the beginning," forces and 
powers were brought into exercise and results were accomplished which 
have not since been exercised or accomplished. In other words, the ori- 
gin of the world and the things upon it was essentially and radically dif- 
ferent from the manner in which the present order of nature is now 
being sustained and perpetuated. The mere matter of time is in no way 
the essential idea in the problem. The question of how much time was 
occupied in the work of creation is of no importance, neither is the 
question of how long ago it took place. The one essential idea is that 
the processes and methods of creation are beyond us, for we have noth- 
ing with which to measure them; creation and the reign of " natural law " 
are essentially incommensurable. The one thing that the doctrine of 
creation insists upon is that the origin of our world and of the things 
upon it must have been brought about by some direct and unusual mani- 
festation of the power of the Being whom we call the Creator; and that 
since this original creation the things of nature have been perpetuated 
and sustained by processes and methods which (though still essentially 
inscrutable by us) we call the order of nature and the reign of natural 
law. 

But in view of the series of facts enumerated in the previous pages, 
the doctrine of creation is established by modern scientific discoveries 
almost like the conclusion of a mathematical problem. — " Q. E. D., or 
New Light on the Doctrine of Creation," George McGready Price, pp. 125- 
128. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, copyright, 1917. 

Evolution, Testimony of History Concerning. — If man has sprung 
from the lower forms of life up through the savage to the civilized con- 
dition, we ought to be able to find many things confirming it in the 
conditions revealed at the dawn of history. And it is really most nat- 
ural thus to work backward upon the supposed history of development; 
for there are certainly some leading facts about man's early history that 
are many times more certain than most of the supposed generalizations 
of biology and geology. 

What, then, are the conditions revealed as the curtain rises on the 
first scenes of recorded human history? Briefiy, and without attempt- 
ing to offer much proof for the statements made, we may say that we 
have well-civilized tribes scattered over all the continents, in Peru, 



EXODUS, ROUTE OF 181 

Mexico, the central plain of North America, Western Europe, Egypt, 
Babylonia, Assyria, and the East, each possessing a civilization seldom 
equaled, save in very modern times, and in some respects not excelled 
by any, and yet of such a character, and so undeniably related to one 
anothjCr, as to prove that these scattered civilizations, must have had a 
common source in some other civilized state before they were thus dis- 
persed. It is also very strongly suggested in many ways that this 
primal home of civilized man before his dispersion is somehow lost in 
the geological changes which have taken place. In addition we shall 
find that the history of languages confirms the record of Babel; while 
all nations have not only traditions of the flood, but of an Edenic begin- 
ning; and at this first glimpse we get of human society, they give us in 
their social customs, and embalmed in the dry husks of their dead for- 
malism and idolatry, gleams of lofty ideals and forms of prayer to one 
supreme God, the Creator, — all traces of a more intellectual, a more 
truly human state in the dim forgotten past, the afterglow of a once 
brighter day. — " God's Two Books," George McCready Price, pp. 40, 41. 
Washington, D. C: Review and Herald Puhlishing Association, 1911. 

Exodus, Route of. — It is just here I" at the head of Lake I'imsah "] 
where the land route to Palestine begins, and was so used as a route 
by the Bedawin before the days of -the present Suez Canal. We must 
not forget that the chariot corps — " creme de la creme " of the Egyptian 
army — was stationed at Tanis; it could there the better guard the 
frontier. But a new command comes from the Lord God: that the array 
was to " turn." They had been told not to go " the way of the land of 
the Philistines, although that was near; for God said. Lest peradven- 
ture the people repent when they see war." Ex. 13: 17. Had they gone 
that direct route, they must have seen war, and plenty of it, too, for 
the chariot corps would have been well on their flank, and in their 
front the great fortified wall; and, moreover, Philistia at this time was 
under the sway of Egypt. None but a powerful array of trained soldiers 
could have had any hope of cutting their way through all these warlike 
forces of the enemy, and the Israelites were a frightened mob of cap- 
tives, just liberated from hard bondage, with coward minds and fright- 
ened hearts. This " turn " gave Pharaoh courage. He thought they 
were " entangled in the land," and here I will quote what I have pre- 
viously written on this part of the subject, for, on re-examination of 
the whole route, I see no reason to alter it: 

" They now marched to encamp before ' Pi-hahiroth,' between Mig- 
dol and the sea over against ' Baal-Zephon.' ' Pi-hahiroth ' means ' edge 
of the sedge,' or 'where sedge grows;' Baal-Zephon, 'the Lord of the 
North.' This latter was across the sea, and probably the high peaks of 
' Jebel Muksheih ' were in view. But have we any reason to believe 
that the 'Red Sea' extended in those days as far as 'Lake Timsah'? 
Yes, plenty of proof. Egyptian records show how at that time the ' sea ' 
extended to that place. They tell how a canal was made to connect 
the Nile with that sea, and give an account of the rejoicings on the 
opening of the canal. The ' sea ' has retreated, owing to the elevation 
of the land. Proofs are in plenty from recent geological surveys, and 
now we can understand with a clearer eye what the prophet Isaiah 
means when he says (chap. 11: 15) : ' And the Lord shall utterly destroy 
the tongue of the Egyptian Sea, and with his mighty wind shall he shake 
his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and 
make men go over dryshod.' ' Egyptian sea ' — it could never have 
meant that which now ends at Suez, but one which all records prove 
extended to Lake Timsah. Sluggish, yes; for it was ' weedy ' or ' reedy.' 



182 EXODUS, ROUTE OP 

And here let me say there is no warrant, according to the best scholars, 
in calling the sea in question ' Red Sea.' The Hebrew words are clear, 
and mean ' sea of reeds ' or ' sea of weeds,' when they describe the 
' sea ' the Israelites crossed. This, again, is a most powerful confirma- 
tion of the view that at one time the present Gulf of Suez extended to 
Lake Timsah." 

Pharaoh thought that, hemmed in by that " sea," the Israelites 
would be at his mercy; so he makes "ready his chariot" and takes 
chariot guard — 600 chosen chariots — " and pursued after the children 
of Israel." He overtakes the multitude, who see their danger: the des- 
ert toward Jebel Attaka, with its steep cliffs, in front; the "sea" on 
their left hand. They murmur at Moses, " Were there no graves in 
Egypt?" They remind him of their fears, their cowardly fears: "It 
had been better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should die 
in the wilderness!" The pursuit continued, for "Pharaoh drew nigh;" 
but the Lord orders that the people " go forward," and the promise is 
that they shall cross the sea on " dry ground." The host of Israel is led 
by a " pillar of fire " by night, a " pillar of cloud " by day. Eastern 
armies have from time immemorial been led by " cressets " of fire at 
night; Alexander so led his troops. The Mecca caravan of today is led 
by " cressets " of fire borne aloft. This is now done to escape the heat 
of the sun. But the pillar of cloud was now in the rear (Ex. 14: 19) of 
the Israelites, showing its bright face to them, but darkness to the 
Egyptians. So those troops still pursuing would be as if in a fog; they 
would dimly see the fugitives moving on, but be ignorant of their own 
exact position. They, in the darkness caused by the cloud, would not 
see the waters. The Egyptian host is " troubled," and, as old versions 
of the Bible read, " their chariot wheels were bound," or " made them 
to drive heavily." Yes, because the wind which had caused the sea to 
go back was changing by a miracle. So the water, percolating through 
the sand, would make the whole a quicksand; and "when the morning 
appeared," the Egyptians saw their dangerous position, tried to fly — 
it was too late! they were all swallowed up; and " Israel saw the great 
work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians." 

" Egyptian records tell us that at this time the then Pharaoh had 
had to meet a serious invasion of Libyans and other peoples on the 
west." This is probably why he had so weakened his garrisons at 
Tanis that he only had the chariot corps. 

I have already spoken of the great discovery of royal mummies, and 
told how Seti, Rameses, and many other royal bodies have been found. 
The mummy of Meneptah is missing! Though no mummy of Meneptah 
is found yet, in the Boulak Museum we can look upon his sculptured 
face, which, if the artist does not belie him, shows him to have been 
a weak, irresolute man, such as the Bible narrative suggests — puffed 
up by his grandeur; for he wears on his head a double crown, that for 
Upper and Lower Egypt. One thing is, however, clear from the monu- 
ments — that it was long ere any Egyptian expeditions across the border 
were undertaken; and this in itself would imply that the empire was 
weakened from some cause known to the Egyptians, and which they 
wished to conceal. Those best able to judge say that the explorations 
in the Delta, Tanis, and other towns, have as yet only touched the fringe 
of possible discovery. 

It is an interesting fact that Zoan, the Tanis of Pharaoh, was 
built seven years after Hebron, and from its name must have been 
built by Semitics. No trace of Zoan exists; Tanis was built over 
it, and city after city has been built- over the ruins of that. We also 
see that " Hyksos inscriptions on sphinxes are always in a line down 



J^ASTING 3.83 



the right shoulder, never on the left. This honoring of the right shoul- 
ders by Semitios was followed by the Jews;" the Egyptians, on the 
contrary, when they wished to show honor, inscribed on the left shoul- 
der, but they were usually indifferent. 

It will be Seen that we totally disagree with those theories which 
would make the Israelites cross the Gulf of Suez. To my mind the 
whole of that theory is unsound; contrary to the position assigned In 
the Bible to the land of Goshen; entirely destroyed by M. Naville's dis- 
covery of Pithom, which sets all doubt at rest. Theologians had read 
Josephus, and, misled by the Letopolis which he speaks of, thought it 
meant Heliopolis, near Cairo. Hampered by this vital mistake, they 
overlooked the Bible statements as to Zoan and Goshen, and have led 
the world astray. The Israelites had crossed by a miracle, and then 
" went three days in the wilderness and found no water." Had they 
crossed at Suez, three hoUrs would have taken the host to the " Wells of 
Moses;" but crossing about Lake Timsah, they would have to go " three 
days " before they could reach that oasis. 

Why should it be thought necessary that Pharaoh and his host de- 
scended a steep bank into a fearful chasm? His chariot wheels could 
not have driven down it, and it was really when they " drove heavily " 
that the soldiers found out where they were and turned to fly. Had the 
Bible been read more closely, this popular idea of Suez would never have 
gained credence. — " The Bible and Modern Discoveries'' Henry A. 
Harper, pp. 83^88. London: Printed for the Committee of the Palestine 
Exploration Fund by Alexander P. Watt, 1891. 

Fasting, Sceiptueal Idea of. — The custom of fasting has been more 
or less conspicuous in many of the religions which have prevailed in 
the world. Among the religious observances of the Greeks and Romans, 
fasting, though not entirely unknown, held a less important place than 
elsewhere. In Egypt we find nothing of compulsory general fasts, 
though a rigorous temporary abstinence was required of persons about 
to be initiated into the mysteries of Isis and Osiris. In the remote 
Bast the custom of fasting obtained more generally. Climate, the hab- 
its of a people, and their creed, gave it at different periods different 
characteristics; but it may be pronounced to have been a recognized 
institution with all the more civilized nations, especially those of Asia, 
throughout all historic times. We find it in high estimation among the 
ancient Parsees of Irania, It formed a prominent feature among the 
mysteries of Mithras; and found its way, together with these, over 
Armenia, Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia Minor to Palestine, and north- 
ward to the wilds of Scythia. The ancient Chinese and Hindoos carried 
fasting to an unnatural excess. The Pavaka, by the due observance of 
which the Hindoo believer is supposed to be purified from all his sins, 
requires, among other things, an uninterrupted fast for twelve days 
(Chambers' Cyclopedia, art. "Fast"). The Mohammedans, during the 
ninth month, Ramadan, fast rigorously every day, from sunrise till the 
stars appear at evening. 

In the Scriptures fasting assumes a new and higher significance. 
Here it is purely an act of piety. The Bible represents fasting in the 
true sense as the accompaniment of supplication, as being in itself an 
act of prayer. Apart from its relation and reference to the divine Being, 
the mere act of fasting has in the Bible no significance. Of its sanitary 
value we hear nothing; in its Scriptural aspect it appears as a religious 
act, a penitential act, a prayer in itself. Such being the case, we cease 
to wonder that there is no direct mention made of " prayer " in the 
book of Esther. A Jew would no more think of fasting without prayer 



i84 FASTING 

— without putting up a petition to Jehovah — than he would think of 
eating without drinking, or of sleeping without reclining. Fasting was 
invariably attended with prayer, though prayer was not in every case 
accompanied by fasting. It is clear that fasting in the Scriptural sense 
comprises: (1) Abstinence from food and drink for a longer or shorter 
period. Without this abstinence there is no proper "fast." (2) Absti- 
nence from all earthly pleasures. Dan. 9:3; 10: 3. (3) Abstinence to 
the extent of aflaicting the body more or less. This physical suffering, 
this refusal to gratify the demands of appetite, is not to be regarded as a 
penance, but as an act of self-denial subordinating the lower nature to 
the higher, the physical to the spiritual part of man. 

Generally speaking, fasting viewed as a religious mortification or 
humiliation, was intended: (1) As an expression of penitence and humil- 
ity before God, in view of one's sins. It was not a self-inflicted punish- 
ment for sin, but an expression of sorrow on account of sin. 1 Sam. 
7:6; Neh. 1:4. (2) It was often a prayer for the removal of some pres- 
ent affliction or calamity under which the individual or the nation was 
suffering (see Judges 20: 26; Joshua 7: 6, where fasting is evidently 
implied). (3) At other times the object was to deprecate some imminent 
evil, to avert some impending judgment of God. 2 Sam. 12: 16; 1 Kings 
21: 27; 2 Chron. 20: 3; Jonah 3: 5-10. (4) Often fasting was preparatory 
to seeking by prayer some special blessing from God. Matt. 17 : 21 ; 
Luke 2: 37; Acts 10: 30; 13: 3; 14: 23; 1 Cor. 7: 5. 

Among the Jews but one day of fasting seems to have been observed 
by divine command — that of the day of atonement (compare Lev. 16: 
29; 23: 27; Num. 29: 7). During the time of the captivity, the Jews 
observed four other annual fasts, — on the seventeenth of the fourth 
month, in memory of the capture of Jerusalem (Jer. 52: 6, 7); on the 
ninth day of the fifth month, in memory of the iDurning of the temple 
(Zech. 7: 3; 8: 19); on the third of the seventh month, in memory of 
the slaughter of Gedaliah (Jer. 41: 2); and on the tenth day of the 
tenth month, as a memorial of the inception of the attack upon Jeru- 
salem (Zech. 8: 19). To these was added the fast of Esther, observed 
on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, Adar. At a later pe- 
riod other fasts were added, so that the Jewish calendar includes at 
present some twenty-eight fast days for each year. John Allen in 
his "Modern Judaism" (pp. 384, 385), mentions six principal fasts 
(see also Rabbi David Levi's " Ceremonies of the Jews," pp. 70, 
71, 85, 120, 125; "Jewish Ceremonies," by Gamaliel Ben Pedahzur, 
pp. 34-68). The latter very rare and curious work specifies and de- 
scribes nine fast days, and refers to several others. The Pharisees, as 
appears from Luke 18: 12, were accustomed to fast twice in each week. 
These fasts are said to have occurred on Mondays and Thursdays, be- 
cause the tradition was that Moses ascended Mt. Sinai the second time 
to receive the law on a Thursday, and descended upon Monday (Schaff- 
Herzog, Cyclopedia, art. "Fasting"). The Talmudic treatise entitled 
Taanith, gives very minute directions respecting the proper method of 
fasting. 

It would be beside our purpose to give a sketch of the custom of 
fasting as it has obtained in the Christian church. We close with the 
remark of Calvin: "Holy and legitimate fasting is directed to three 
ends. For we practise it, either as a restraint on the flesh, to preserve 
it from licentiousness; or as a preparation for prayers and pious medi- 
tations; or as a testimony of our humiliation in the presence of God, 
when we are desirous of confessing our guilt before him " (" Institutes," 
book 4, chap. 12, sec. 15). — " The Book of Esther, A New Translation,'' 
edited ty Rev. John W. Haley, M. A., pp. 149-151. Andover: Warren F, 
Draper, 1885. 



LEASTS, NEW YEAR 185 

Fatherhood. — He [Christ] makes the fatherhood the basis of all 
the duties which man owes to God. Supreme love to God is possible 
only because God is love. On the ground of mere sovereignty or judicial 
and autocratic authority, the first commandment could never be en- 
joined. We cannot love simply because we will or wish or are com- 
manded, but only because we are loved. Supreme affection is possible 
only through the sovereign fatherhood. And what is true of this first 
is true of all our other duties. "Worship is to be in spirit and in truth, 
because it is worship of the Father. Prayer is to be constant and 
simple and sincere because it is offered to the Father. We are to give 
alms in simplicity and without ostentation, because the Father sees 
in secret. We are to be forgiving, because the Father forgives. Obe- 
dience is imitation of God, a being perfect as our Father in heaven is 
perfect. In a word, duty is but the habit of the filial spirit; and it is 
possible and incumbent on all men, because all are sons. — " The Place 
of Christ in Modern Theology," Andreto Martin Fairbairn, M. A., D. D., 
p. 488. New York: Charles 8cril)ner's Sons, 1893. 

Fathers, Cypbian. — Thascius Csecilius Cyprianus was born of a 
wealthy patrician family about 200 a. d. While yet a young man he 
was a brilliant teacher of rhetoric at Carthage, and during that period 
seems to have disputed with members of the rising Christian church. 
Their arguments or evidence must have been too strong for his disbelief, 
for he became converted, and at once assumed an influential position 
among the Christians of the city. 

He spent most of his wealth on the poor, and grew to be so popular 
that the whole Christian populace called him to the head of the Cartha- 
ginian church. This made him a buffer against the imperial persecu- 
tions. Several times he was driven into hiding or exile, and at last he 
was brought before the magistrate and condemned to death in accord- 
ance with the decree of Valerian, because he would not sacrifice to the 
emperor. — " The Library of Original Sources,'' Vol. IV, p. So. Milwau- 
kee, Wis.: University Research Extension Company, copyright 1907. 

Feasts, New Yeiab. — It is altogether probable that the beginning of 
the year was celebrated from ancient times in some special way, like 
the New Moon festival. The earliest reference, however, to such a cus- 
tom is, probably, in the account of the vision of Ezekiel (Eze. 40: 1) 
which, as stated above, took place at the beginning of the year, on the 
tenth day of the month (Tishri?). On the same day the beginning of 
the year of jubilee was to be proclaimed by the blowing of trumpets. 
Lev. 25: 9. According to the Septuagint rendering of Ezekiel 45: 20, 
special sacrifices were to be offered on the first day of the seventh month 
as well as on the first day of the first month. This first day of the sev- 
enth .month was appointed by the law to be " a day of blowing of trump- 
ets " ( nr'T.'n C** ). There was to be a holy convocation; no servile work 
was to be done; and special sacrifices were to be offered. Lev. 23: 23-25; 
Num. 29: 1-6 (comp. ib. 10: 1-10). This day was not expressly called 
New Year's Day, but it was evidently so regarded by the Jews at a very 
early period. . . . 

The observance of the 1st of Tishri as Rosh ha-Shanah, the most 
solemn day next to Yom Kippur, is based principally on the traditional 
law to which the mention of ." Zikkaron " (=z" memorial day;" Lev. 
23: 24) and the reference of Ezra to the day as one " holy to the Lord " 
(Neh. 8: 9), seem to point. The passage in Psalms (81: 5) referring 
to the solemn feast which is held on New Moon day, when the shofar 
is sounded, as a day of " mishpat " (judgment) of "the God of Jacob," 
is taken to indicate the character of Rosh ha-Shanah. Rosh ha-Shanah is 



186 S^LOOD, TESTIMONY TO 

the most important judgment day, on which all the inhabitants of the 
world pass for judgment before the Creator, as sheep pass for examina- 
tion before the shepherd. Three books of account are opened on Rosh ha- 
Shanah, wherein the fate of the wicked, the righteous, and those of an 
intermediate class (not utterly wicked) are recorded. The names of 
the righteous are immediately inscribed, and they are sealed " to live." 
The middle class are allowed a respite of ten days till Yom Kippur, to 
repent and become righteous; the wicked are "blotted out of the book 
of the living." Ps. 69:28: — The Jewish Encyclopedia, Yol. IX, art. 
"New Year;' p. 256. 

Flood, Testimony of Facts to. — Such, then, are the teachings of 
the Mosaic narrative. Let us note how science brings to our view the 
results of this work. 

It is well known that the bones of the great extinct mammals, as 
well as those of the immense reptiles of the " secondary " rocks, are 
almost always found in comparatively superficial deposits, quite gen- 
erally also among the foothills of ranges of mountains like the Rockies 
or the Himalayas. More than this, they are found together in such 
heaps, such vast numbers, as utterly to preclude the idea that they 
died and were buried in any ordinary way — unless, indeed, those an- 
cient animals had graveyards and buried their dead together. Thus, in 
speaking of the remains of the Zeuglodon (a kind of whale), Professor 
Nicholson says: 

" Remains of these gigantic whales are very common in the ' Jack- 
son beds ' of the Southern United States. So common are they that, 
according to Dana, * the large vertebrae, some of them a foot and a half 
long and a foot in diameter, were formerly so abundant over the country 
in Alabama that they were used for making walls, or were burned to rid 
the fields of them.' " 

Concerning some of the deposits of the Western United States we 
are told that " remains of the Oreodontidae [extinct pig-like animals] 
occur in such vast numbers as to indicate that these animals must have 
lived in large herds around the borders of the lake basins in which 
their remains have been entombed." 

Whether Professor Marsh's attempt at explanation really explains, I 
shall leave the reader to judge. It was the best he could do as a 
uniformitarian. But such collections of ancient remains are just what 
the sincere believer of Moses' record would expect to find. 

I might refer to the remains of the Hipparion, also found in im- 
mense quantities in Europe and India, but shall confine myself to a 
more familiar example, those of the mammoth and other semltropical 
species found in such profusion in the arctic regions. These in many 
cases have been so suddenly overwhelmed and embalmed in the ice 
that their undigested food, consisting of the boughs, bulbs, and leaves 
of semltropical plants, which, as we have seen, grew in that locality 
abundantly at that time, has been found in the stomachs of these beasts, 
as if the latter had been killed yesterday, proving that they were 
" quietly feeding when the crisis came." Most persons have read of the 
first specimen of the mammoth found by a fisherman in 1799, on the 
bank of the Lena River near its mouth. When it finally tumbled out of 
the ice, after five years occupied in the latter melting around it, the 
naturalist who wished to secure the specimen and pelt for the museum 
at St. Petersburg had great difficulty in saving it from the dogs and 
wolves, for its fiesh was in a state of perfect preservation after its 
millenniums of entombment. But we are speaking now only of the 
abundance of these remains. 



FIX)OD, TESTIMONY TO 187 

" So abundant, indeed, are the remains of the mammoth that for 
many years they have actually been quarried for the sake of the ivory 
— in 1821 no less a quantity than 20,000 pounds of this product having 
been obtained from New Siberia alone." . . . 

We might multiply such testimony to almost any extent, showing 
that almost all the so-called Secondary and Tertiary rocks reveal a 
similar state of things, — remains of land and marine life all heaped 
together in certain sections in such vast numbers as to prove conclu- 
sively to any unbiased mind that they were destroyed all together and 
in some very extraordinary way. The elemental tumult described in 
Genesis 7 and 8 seems by far the most reasonable explanation of the 
facts as we know them. And there is, of course, no stratigraphical evi- 
dence — the only evidence of real value — to show that all these 
deposits referred to above might not have been laid down at approx- 
imately one and the same time. — " Outlines of Modern Christianity 
and Modern Science," George McCready Price, pp. 161-164. Oakland, 
Calif.: Pacific Press Punishing Company, copyright 1902. 

The same strong evidence to the historic truth of Genesis is given 
us when we consider the question of climate. Every " age," from " Si- 
lurian times " down to the " recent," bears witness, through its coral 
limestones, or remains of plant and land animal life, that the climate 
in which these forms lived was of the most mild and genial description, 
and singularly uniform, " periods during which the whole northern 
hemisphere enjoyed a kind of perpetual summer." The same species 
have been found ^distributed over all this continent from Florida to 
Labrador, and even far within the arctic circle, a singular uniformity 
of climate that we can scarcely comprehend. 

These facts agree well with what we know of antediluvian times. 
The cloudless, rainless skies of those glorious days when the earth was 
young betoken a vastly different condition of the atmosphere from what 
we have today. But what is our astonishment when we are told, almost 
in the same breath, that every formation, from the " Silurian " to the 
" recent," presents unmistakable evidence of " ice action " over the same 
areas and practically at the same time! Talk about credulity! What, 
then, becomes of our " one great act of faith, — faith in the uniformity 
of nature," — about which we used to hear so much from Professor 
Huxley? Why, this invoking the power of ice action in a semitropical 
climate is contrary to their own favorite " law of parsimony," which, 
we are told, " forbids us to invoke the operation of higher causes to 
account for effects which lower causes suffice to explain," How can 
they have the assurance to bid us leave the plain, consistent, and emi- 
nently reasonable explanation of Moses, and accept this " rotation of 
climates," as James Geikie calls it, without the most undoubted evi- 
dence that the phenomenon spoken of was really caused by ice action? 
No wonder the latter author exclaims: 

" Geologists are staggered by the appearance of glacial deposits in 
the Permian, a formation whose fossils indicate mild and genial rather 
than cold climatal conditions. The occurrence in the Eocene, also, of 
huge, ice-carried blocks seems incomprehensible when the general char- 
acter of the Eocene fossils is taken into account, for these have a some- 
what tropical aspect. So likewise the appearance of ice-transported 
blocks in the Miocene is a sore puzzle." 

That is, palms and other tropical plants grew abundantly in Eng- 
land, and the cinnamon and fig, with palms, etc., grew in North America, 
in both Eocene and Miocene "times; " while in the latter, many ever- 
greens, together with luxuriant ivies and vines, large-leaved oaks, and 
vwalnutsi, and even Sequoias (like the pines and " big trees " of Calif or- 



188 FLOOD, UNIVERSALITY OF 

nia) and magnolias, grew in northern Greenland, " within twelve de- 
grees of the pole." I should think that glaciers over Europe in such 
a climate were rather a " sore puzzle " for the most ingenious " uni- 
formitarian." 

To make the matter worse, they are finding these evidences of " gla- 
cial action " over such enormous areas that many of our leading inves- 
tigators are becoming dazed at the problems involved in making their 
theories appear even moderately reasonable. For a long time they 
have taught us that a great winding-sheet of ice extended over the 
northern regions down to about 40° north in America, and to about 50° 
in the Old World, though curiously enough confined between the Mis- 
souri River and the Dakotas on the west and the Ural Mountains on the 
east. Agassiz, indeed, and others of the older geologists, taught that 
the glacial winter was cosmic, i. e., encrusted the whole globe with ice; 
and . . . the strong evidence of this comparative universality at least 
was made the basis of the " interval " or " restitution theory " of cre- 
ation, which was started by Buckland and advocated by many others. 
But this idea of a universal coat of ice has been gradually hushed down 
by the ridicule of modern geologists, most of whom, as evolutionists, of 
course cannot believe in the great break in the succession of life which 
this would involve. Besides, it would labor under the grave incon- 
venience of harmonizing too closely with the Biblical story of a uni- 
versal deluge, if for ice we only substitute water. But more recently 
they have been finding abundant traces of the same phenomena in dif- 
ferent parts of Australia, India, South Africa, and South America, — 
tropical or semitropical countries, — though in som^ cases they are 
obliged to locate them in " Permo-Carboniferous times," that is, con- 
temporary with the luxuriant" vegetation of the coal beds, and though in 
each case they say the deposits are stratified, and therefore could not 
have been produced by glaciers. 

But these things are no longer puzzles, nor are such minor occur- 
rences as marine forms mixed up with the coal and land plants with the 
deep-sea limestones, already referred to, if we only forget this ever- 
haunting specter of the succession of life, and remember that all these 
deposits were laid down at that universal churning up of the soil of the 
ancient world, the Noachian Deluge. — " Outlin&s of Modern Christianity 
and Modern Science," George McCready Price, pp. 170-174. Oakland, 
Calif.: Pacific Press Puhlisliing Company, copyright 1902. 

Flood, Universality of. — The universality and northerly course, 
in general, of the deluge, appear to be fully established by well-attested 
accounts of the fossil remains of foreign animals and vegetables, found 
all over the globe, in places and at elevations where they could not 
have been naturally produced. 

1. At Port Julian, on the eastern coast of South America, in 49 
degrees south latitude, Sir John Narborough, in 1670, found on the tops 
of the hills, and in the ground, very large* oyster shells, six or seven 
inches broad, and yet not one oyster was to be found in the harbor. . . . 

2. On the Andes, near the western coast of South America, UUoa 
found bivalve shells at the elevation of 13,869 English feet; and in the 
same rocks containing these, petrified wood, which must have been 
drifted thither at the same time the shells were deposited. . . . 

3. The Alps and Pyrenean Mountains in Europe abound with fossil 
shells, at considerable elevations. 

4. In the Tauric Mountains of the Crimea are found petrifactions 
of foreign shells, not to be met with in the adjacent seas. . . . 

5. At the mountain of St. Peter's, near Maestricht, in Germany, 
among other fossil remains have been found the head of a crocodile; 



FliOOD, UNIVERSALITY OF 18 9 

large jawbones and vertebrae, a thigh bone and shoulder blade of some 
large species of animal; tortoise shells; fragments of branched horns 
resembling those of the elk; the teeth of various species of sharks, and 
of some unknown fishes; sea shells of various kinds; silicious wood, 
perforated by worms, madrepores, and fungites. . . . 

6. The same observations may be applied to the petrified skeletons 
of the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, etc., which abound in the 
steppes, or table-lands, of Tartary and Siberia. Most of the fossil croco- 
diles which have been discovered in the different parts of Europe, are 
referred by St. Fond to the Gavial, or Asiatic species. . . . 

7. In a gravel pit in the parish of Newton St. Loe, three miles from 
Bath, in the valley adjoining the Bristol road, were found, in 1801, 
several fossil remains of foreign animals, now in the possession of 
Jacob Wilkinson, Esq. Among them is a great tusk, probably of a 
mammoth, which is seven feet long, and measures, at the butt, thirteen 
inches round; a large shoulder blade, probably belonging to the same 
animal; and the petrified jaws of an alligator, in which the teeth are 
perfect, and locked in each other. . . . 

8. In the year 1775, the Russian government sent a surveyor, Chvoi- 
noff, to explore the shores of the icy sea, who found, near the promon- 
tory of Swatoi Noss, an island about 150 versts long, and 80 broad in 
the widest part, which was " formed," to use his own expressions, " of 
the bones of that extraordinary animal, the mammoth, mixed with the 
heads and horns of the buffalo, or something like ft, and some horns 
of the rhinoceros." 

9. Also during the expedition for exploring the north and east 
coasts of Russia, in 1785-94, on the high, sandy shores of the river 
Kovima, which runs into the icy sea, in latitude 69 degrees 16 minutes, 
were found in great abundance the tusks of the mammoth. . . . 

10. M. Pallas, who had formerly espoused the opinion of Butfon, 
that Siberia was once the abode of elephants, was convinced by later 
observations that such, whose remains are there found in considerable 
numbers, must either have fled to these high grounds to avoid an in- 
creasing deluge, or that their carcasses had been wafted thither by 
its waters. In his observations on the formation of mountains, this 
author says that the relics of those large animals, inhabitants of Hin- 
dustan, — the elephant, rhinoceros, and monstrous buffaloes, — are to be 
found in great quantities near the course of rivers, and chiefly wher- 
ever there is any considerable opening in the chain of Oural Mountains, 
which bound Siberia on the south. They are deposited at no great 
depth, under beds of sand or slime, accompanied with various sea 
shells, bones of fish, and wood covered with ocher, — an evident proof 
that they were transported thither by water [and that they did not 
travel thither by land]. A rhinoceros, still covered with its skin entire, 
found in the frozen soil of the borders of the Viloui, " is a convincing 
proof," says he, " that it must have been the most rapid inundation, 
which could have hurried this carcass to these frozen countries, before 
corruption had time to destroy its tenderest parts." . , . 

11. " A complete mammoth has lately been found in a state of per- 
fect preservation on the borders of the frozen ocean. It was discovered 
by Schoumakoff, a Tungoose chief, in the autumn of 1799, in the midst 
of a rock of ice; but it was not till the fifth year after finding it that 
the ice had melted sufficiently to disengage the mammoth, when it fell 
over on its side on a bank of sand. . . . 

12. In the heart of North America, also, some years ago, in a salt 
marsh near the river Ohio, were dug up several skeletons of animals of 
enormous size. One tooth, belonging to a large row, weighed upwards 



190 FLOOD, CHANGES DUE TO 

of eleven pounds. A thigh bone of a quadruped was found in the same 
place, which was more than four feet in length. . . . 

13. In the year 1783, a huge skeleton, probably of this kind, was 
discovered in a marl pit,' under a peat moss, surrounded by a stratum 
of sea shells, and other marine productions, on the lands of Dr. Percy, 
bishop of Dromore, in Ireland. The horns were seven feet and one 
inch long; the length of the skull, one foot eleven inches; the breadth 
of the forehead above the eyes, eleven inches. All the bones were of a 
gigantic size, not in the least petrified, but as fresh as if the animal 
had only died a week before. ... 

These instances seem fully sufficient to establish the universality of 
the deluge, and its general progress northward from the southern polar 
regions.— "A ISlew Analysis of Chronology and Geography," Rev. William 
Hales, D. D., Vol. I, pp. 327-331. London: G. J. G. & F. Rivington, 1830. 

Flood, Changes Due to. — It seems evident that the chief difference 
between the world as we know it and the world before the flood, is due 
to some great change in the atmospheric conditions. Those rainless 
skies, with a semitropical climate universal over the globe, are proof 
of this; as is also the long life of man and the great vigor and lux- 
uriance of the animal and vegetable forms found fossil in the rocks. 
They all speak to us of an atmosphere more vitalizing than we have 
now. It would even seem probable that ordinary decay and fermenta- 
tion were then comparatively unknown, for in the first recorded instance 
of the kind, it seems to have been altogether a new and unexpected 
result. "Whether ther« was more carbonic acid gas in the air then, 
and whether any material increase of this would be consistent with 
the great vigor of the animals, I know not. It would seem to account 
for the luxuriance of the plant life. Simply a denser atmosphere might 
allow far more water vapor to be suspended in it without precipitation, 
and might, as Tyndall thought, account for that singularly uniform 
climate over all the world. I have already suggested that some mass 
of burning hydrogen floating in space might have been attracted into 
our atmosphere, and might in that case have robbed us of a large share 
of our oxygen, leaving our breath supply in the impoverished condition 
in which it is at present. What has really produced the change, we may 
never know in this life; but certain it is that there has been a great 
alteration in our atmosphere since those glorious, balmy, springlike 
days when the earth was young. — " Outlines of Modern Christianity and 
Modern Science,'* George McGready Price, p. 181. 

Flood, According to Berosus=— The account which Berosus gives 
of the deluge is still more strikingly in accordance with the narrative 
of Scripture. " Xisuthrus," he says, " was warned by Saturn in a dream 
that all mankind would be destroyed shortly by a deluge of rain. He 
was bidden to bury in the city of Sippara (or Sepharvaim) such written 
documents as existed; and then to build a huge vessel or ark, in length 
five furlongs, and two furlongs in width, wherein was to be placed good 
store of provisions, together with winged fowl and four-footed beasts of 
the earth; and in which he was hims.elf to embark with his wife and 
children, and his close friends. 

" Xisuthrus did accordingly, and the fiood came at the time ap- 
pointed. The ark drifted toward Armenia; and Xisuthrus, on the third 
day after the rain abated, sent out from the ark a bird, which, after 
flying for a while over the illimitable sea of waters, and flnding neither 
food nor a spot on which it could settle, returned to him. Some days 
later, Xisuthrus sent out other birds, which likewise returned, but with 
feet covered with mud. Sent out a third time^ the birds returned no 



FiiOOD, ACCORDING TO BEROSUS 191 

more; and Xisuthrus knew that the earth had reappeared. So he re- 
moved some of the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold the vessel 
had grounded upon a high mountain, and remained fixed. Then he 
went forth from the ark, with his wife, his daughter, and his pilot, and 
built an altar, and offered sacrifice; after which he suddenly disap- 
peared from sight, together with those who had accompanied him. 

" They who had remained in the ark, surprised that he did not 
return, sought him, when they heard his voice in the sky, exhorting 
them to continue religious, and bidding them go back to Babylonia 
from the land of Armenia, where they were, and recover the buried 
documents, and make them once more known among men. So they 
obeyed, and went back to the land of Babylon, and built many cities and 
temples, and raised up Babylon from its ruins." 

Such is the account of Berosus; and a description substantially 
the same is given by Abydenus, an ancient writer of whom less is 
known, but whose fragments are generally of great value and impor- 
tance. It is plain that we have here a tradition not drawn from the 
Hebrew record, much less the foundation of that record, yet coinciding 
with it in the most remarkable way. The Babylonian version is tricked 
out with a few extravagances, as the monstrous size of the vessel, and 
the translation of Xisuthrus; but otherwise it is the Hebrew history 
down to its minutice. The previous warning, the divine direction as to 
the ark and its dimensions, the introduction into it of birds and beasts, 
the threefold sending out of the bird, the place of the ark's resting, the 
egress by removal of the covering, the altar straightway built, and the 
sacrifice offered, constitute an array of exact coincidences which cannot 
possibly be the result of chance, and of which I see no plausible 
account that can be given except that it is the harmony of truth. — 
" The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records," 
George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 67-69. Neiv York: John B. Alden, 1883. 

Flood, Babylonian Account of. — The greatest of all the Babylo- 
nian epics is the story of Gilgames, for in it the greatest of the myths 
seem to pour into one great stream of epic. It was written upon twelve 
big tablets in the library of Ashurbanipal, some of which have been 
badly broken. It was, however, copied from earlier tablets which go 
back to the first dynasty of Babylon. The whole story is interesting and 
important, but its greatest significance lies in the eleventh tablet, which 
contains a description of the great flood, and is curiously parallel to the 
flood story in the book of Genesis. — The International Standard Bible 
Encyclopedia, edited ty James Orr, M. A., D. D., Yol. I, art. ''Baby- 
lonia and Assyria, The Religion of," p. 374. 

Flood, Chaldean Account of. — 
As soon as dawn appeared, 
There rose from the north a dark cloud. 
The weather god (Ramman) thundered in its midst. 
God Nebo and god, the king, went in front of him. 
There came they that oppress mountain and country. 
God Uragal tore loose the anchor. 
There came (also) Adar, storm he poured down. 
The gods the Anunnaki lifted on high (their) torches, 
With whose light they illuminate the land. 
The storm, excited by Ramman, reached up to heaven. 
All light was turned into darkness. 

He overflooded the land like [....], he devastated. 
With violence he blew and in one. (?) day the storm rose above the 
mountains. 



192 FLOOD, CHALDEAN ACCOUNT OF 



Like as an onslaught in battle it came against the people. 

Not could brother see his brother, not did recognize one another the 

people ; 
Even in heaven the gods were afraid of the deluge; 
They retired, went up to the heaven of god Anu (i. e., the sky). 
There the gods crouched down like as dogs, on the surrounding walls 

(perhaps "the firmament" ) they sat down. 
Then cried out Ishtar full of wrath (variant: like a woman in travail) ; 
There called out the goddess, the lofty, she whose cry is powerful: 
This people (?) has been turned into clay, and 

The evil that I have predicted before (or in the assembly of) the gods. 
As I have predicted the evil in the assembly of the gods, 
(It has come about namely:) 

To destroy my people completely, I predicted the storm. 
But I will bear my people again (i. e., bring them to life again). 
Though now, like young fishes, they fill the sea. 
The gods wailed with her over the Anunnaki; 
The gods sat there bowed down in weeping; 
Their lips were pressed together (in fear and in terror). 
Six days and (seven) nights continued the storm, 
Raged cyclone and tempest. 

When the seventh day arrived that (fearful) cyclone ceased, the battle 
Which they had fought like as a battle army rested; 
The waters of the deep narrowed down (sank), the terrible storm, the 

deluge, was at an end. 
I looked up over the sea and raised my voice. 
But the whole race had returned to the clay. 
Like as the surrounding field had become the bed of the rivers, 
(i. e., no difference could be seen, everything was covered with water). 
I opened an air-hole and light fell upon my cheeks; 
Dazzled I sank backward, sitting down weeping, 
Down my cheeks flowed my tears. 
I looked up: "The world a wide ocean! " (I cried). 
On the twelfth (day?) there arose (out of the water) a strip of land. 
On Mount Nicir the ship settled. 
The mountain of the land Nicir took hold of the ship and did not let it 

move again. 
One day, two days, Mount Nicir took hold of the ship and did not let 

it move again. 
The third and fourth day Mount Nicir, the same. 
The same on the fifth and sixth day. 
On the seventh day, in the morning, 
I let go a dove; she flew hither and thither. 
But as there was no place of rest for her, she returned. 
I then sent out a swallow, the bird left, it also flew hither and thither. 
And returned again, as there was no place of rest. 
At last I sent out a raven, it left; 
The raven went and saw the decrease of the waters. 
It settled down to feed (either on the carcasses still floating about or 

on the slimy mud), went off, and no more returned. 
Then I disembarked and to the four winds I offered a sacriflce. 
A peace offering I made upon the height of the mountain. 
Each time I placed seven censers. 

Poured into them calmus, cedar wood, and sweet-smelling lollium. 
The gods inhaled the savor, yea, the gods inhaled the sweet savor;: 
The gods gathered like flies around the sacriflcer. 
But when now the lofty goddess arrived, 
She took the great lightnings of Anu and did according to her desire. 



FLOOD, BABYLONIAN STORY OF 193 

"These gods! (she said) not, by my necklace, will I forget; 

These days will I remember forever, not will I forget; 

The gods may come to the sacrifice, 

But Bel shall not come to the sacrifice. 

Because rashly did he cause the deluge 

And delivered my people to destruction." 

But when god Bel arrived, 

He saw the vessel and grew angry, wrath filled his heart against the 
gods, the Igigi (and he said) : 

"What soul has escaped here; no man must survive the universal de- 
struction." 

God Adar opened his mouth and spake, saying unto Bel, the warlike: 

" Who beside Ea could have thought this out? 

But Ea knows everything," 

Ea opened his mouth and spake, saying unto Bel, the warlike : 

" Thou, mighty among the gods, warrior. 

Thus, thus rashly hast thou caused the deluge. 

May the sinner bear his sin's reward, and the wicked his wickedness. 

Be lenient, let not (all) be crushed; be merciful, let not (everything) be 
destroyed. 

Instead of causing a flood, lions might have come and diminished man- 
kind; 

Instead of causing a flood, hyenas might have come and diminished 
mankind; 

Instead of causing a flood, famine might have arisen and seized the land; 

Instead of causing a flood, pestilence might be brought about and killed 
the people. 

I did not reveal the decision of the great gods. 

Atrachasis I let see (it) in a dream, the decision of the gods he heard." 

Then came Bel to his senses, Bel mounted to the ship, 

Took me by the hand and raised me up. 

He raised up and placed my wife at my side. 

Then he turned toward us, sat down between us and blessed us, saying: 

" Ere this Pernapishtim was a man; 

Now Pernapishtim and his wife shall be like unto the gods and lifted 
up on high; 

Let Pernapishtim live afar off at the mouth of the (two?) rivers." 

And he took us and made us dwell afar off at the mouth of the rivers. 

— " The Library of Original Sources" Yol. I, pp. 18-^1. Milwaukee, 

Wis.: University Research Extension Company, copyright 1907. 

Flood, Babylonian Story of. — The Babylonian story of the deluge 
is so well known that it is not necessary to recapitulate it here. The 
striking resemblances to the Biblical story have so frequently been noted 
that they need not be repeated; nor is it necessary to emphasize the 
fact that they show a common origin for both narratives. In so far all 
scholars are agreed. 

Gunkel, however, taking the position generally held, thinks that 
those who are unwilling to agree that the Hebrew account is dependent 
on the Babylonian, but who say that both are versions of the same 
event, have overanxious temperaments. He claims that inasmuch as 
the stories coincide in so many minor details, they are related as narra- 
tives. To prove that the Israelitish story was borrowed from Babylonia, 
he sums up his views in his "Israel und Babylonien " (p. 19) in two 
arguments: First, the great age of Babylonian civilization and of the 
deluge narrative as well; second, the frequent occurrence of floods is 
very natural in the flat plain of Babylonia, which lies close to the sea 
and is watered by two great streams. 

13 



194 FLOOD, BABYLONIAN STORY OF 

The argument advanced by Zimmern, who holds also that the nar- 
rative was transplanted from Babylonia, its birthplace, is practically the 
same as the arguments of Gunkel. He says that the story, which was 
primitive, was indigenous in Babylonia, and was transplanted to Pales- 
tine; because the very essence of the Babylonian narrative presupposes 
a country liable to inundations, like Babylonia. He regards the story 
simply as a " nature myth," representing the phenomena of winter, 
which in Babylonia is a time of rain. 

These writers hold [that] the theory advanced by Dillman, as well as 
by others, that there was a common Semitic tradition which developed in 
Israel in one way and in Babylonia in another, is to be rejected. Those 
who fail to be convinced that there was no such common source are 
accused by Gunkel of being possessed with anxious piety in a sad com- 
bination with a pitiful lack of culture. 

Besides the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh epic, which contains 
the deluge story, three other fragments have been found. The one, 
which is too small to be of any value, belonging to the early age, refers 
to the Babylonian hero. The second, now in the library of Mr. J. Pier- 
pont Morgan, was written in the reign of Ammizaduga, about 2000 B. c, 
and represents a god calling upon Adad to cause a destructive rainstorm, 
and Ea interposing in order to save the diluvian hero. There are indi- 
cations that even this is a copy of an earlier tablet. Scheil, who has 
given an account of the tablet, thinks this story was current in Sippara. 
We, therefore, have a Babylonian version of a deluge, distinct from the 
other, several centuries prior to the time of Moses. A third is In the 
Berlin Museum. Moreover, early seal-cylinders clearly indicate that 
scenes from the Gilgamesh epic were favorite themes for the lapidary 
of Babylonia or Shumer in a very early period. It is not improbable 
that some represent a Sumerian Noah in his ark. But this only proves 
the antiquity of some of the elements of which the epic is composed. 
It is a well-recognized fact that the Gilgamesh series is a collection 
of stories which became the national epic of the late Babylonians. Its 
composite character has already been pointed out, the work of the re- 
dactor in combining the different elements being an accepted fact. In 
the epic are found relics of ancient Sumerian mythology combined with 
Semitic sun myths; and some of the latter at least, the writer claims, 
have come from an ancient stock of legends possessed by the "Western 
Semites. 

It is not a question whether Israel borrowed the deluge story from 
this Babylonian composition, or the Babylonians from Israel, but 
whether the Semitic elements in the Gilgamesh epic are indigenous to 
southern Babylonia (i. e., to the Sumerians); or whether they had 
their origin with the Semitic Babylonians who entered the land; or 
whether they go back to that Semitic center from which they came. It 
seems that most of the theories on the subject which result in saying 
the Hebrews borrowed their story from the Babylonians, emanate from 
a very contracted view of the situation; as if the only civilized peoples 
in Western Asia that possessed a literature or mythology were the 
Babylonians or Sumerians and Israel. That the Babylonian legend is 
of a great antiquity offers no difficulty. The almost universal character 
of a tradition of the event, which marked an epoch for ancient peoples, 
the writer thinks, is based upon the recollection of an actual inundation 
of an extraordinary character. The Babylonian and the Hebrew narra- 
tives, both of which can be said to belong to a comparatively late period 
in the history of man, have many points, as we have seen, in common. 
Doubtless the Sumerians also possessed a narrative, which may yet be 
found, some of the elements of which are included in the Gilgamesh 



FLOOD, BABYLONIAN STORY OF 195 

series; but which may have been a story altogether different in char- 
acter from the Hebrew and the Babylonian. 

A fact to be constantly kept before us is that the Biblical account 
makes the ark rest upon the mountains of Ararat (i, e., Urartu of the 
inscriptions), while the Babylonian fixes the place at Mt. Nisir. If Nisir 
is a mountain east of the Tigris, across the Little Zab, as has been de- 
clared, it can be said to be in Urartu, for that country included the high- 
lands north of Assyria. It is a question whether in ancient times Urartu 
included the lofty mountainous plateau now known as Armenia. But 
the point to be emphasized is that both the Hebrew and the Babylonian 
stories localized the second beginning of man's history, not only in the 
same region, but also outside of Babylonia. 

The Biblical story contains some features which are acknowledged 
to be distinctively Palestinian. These, it is claimed, made their appear- 
ance after the story reached Palestine and was appropriated by the 
Hebrews. They are " Noah," " the olive leaf," which is characteristic 
of Palestine; "the ark," instead of a ship, because there are no large 
navigable rivers in that land; and the beginning of the deluge ©n the 
seventeenth day of the second month, as that is the month the rains 
begin in Canaan, whereas the Babylonian deluge began in the eleventh 
month, the time the rains begin to fall in Babylonia. This latter is 
based on the fact that the epic was written on twelve tablets, which 
Rawlinson suggested represented the months; the eleventh tablet, there- 
fore, corresponding to the eleventh month. There seems to be about as 
much proof for this assertion as if it were said that all books containing 
365 pages represent the days of the year. Further, I fail to see that 
" Noah " is distinctively Palestinian. There is but one Noah known in 
the literature of Palestine, whereas the element 'N'dli is frequently found 
in Babylonian nomenclature. It would seem that the Pan-Babylonists 
have here overlooked an important argument. 

The statement that " olives " are characteristic of Palestine is most 
interesting, but it would have been more correct to have said Palestine 
and Syria, or still more appropriately Amurru, for at Beirut and Tripolis 
there are olive groves five miles square. Little or nothing is known of 
the origin of the word " ark " fte'bah), although some declare it is of 
Egyptian origin. These supposed features, due to Palestinian influences 
after the story was borrowed from the Babylonian, do not offer very 
weighty arguments in support of the theory that the deluge story orig- 
inated in southern Babylonia, [pp. 71-76] . . . 

We may conclude that predominant elements in this and other 
parts -of the Gilgamesh epic are connected with the sun deity and the 
land of the Western Semites, and that the origin of the Semitic portion 
of the epic, which doubtless includes those features which are common 
to the Biblical narrative, goes back to a West Semitic narrative, which 
is parent also to the Biblical version. 

We are, therefore, led to conclude, in the light of these facts, that 
the influence of Babylonia upon Israel or even Amurru has been greatly 
overestimated. In fact, exactly the reverse seems to be the case, i. e., 
many of the elements of the Semitic Babylonian religion and litera- 
ture are not indigenous to the land, but in all probability came from the 
West; at least they had their natural development in that part of 
Western Asia. The ultimate origin may belong elsewhere, but that 
does not affect these conclusions, [p. 82] — "Amurru, The Hcyme of the 
Northern Semites" AWert T. Clay, Ph. D., pp. 71-76, 82. Philadelphia: 
The Sunday School Times Company, 1909. 

Forever, Two Senses of. — The word *' Olam " has two senses, 
though the connection between the two is obvious. Its first and original 



196 FORGERIES 

sense is to "conceal," or "hide," or something "hidden." Hence it came to 
mean " time hidden from man," or " time indefinite." In our version it 
is often translated " forever," and in certain places it may mean " time 
unmeasured," " for an age," or " for ages." But that strictly speaking 
it expresses a limited time is clear, not only from many passages where 
the time referred to can only be a lifetime, or till the year of jubilee, or 
for the period of the Jewish dispensation, but from other passages, 
where the word is redoubled or used in the plural (which it could not 
be if it meant "forever"), where its meaning is "for ages," or "from 
age to age." — " The Names of God in Holy Scripture," Andrew Jukes, 
pp. 137, 138. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1892. 

Forgeries, Prevalence of, in Early Centuries. — In the history 
of the rise and gradual development of the papal claims the historian 
must never lose sight of a force which was for centuries at work in 
favor of the Papacy, i. e., the falsifications and interpolations of pas- 
sages in the books of the ancient Fathers, or in the acts and canons of 
the councils, in order to defend or promote the interests, the dignity, 
and the grandeur of the Roman see. It is true these frauds do not 
explain by themselves the gradual development of the exaggerated 
claims of the Papacy, but no historian of independent judgment and 
learning will ever be able to deny that those frauds helped, to a great 
extent, the growth of the papal claims, and contributed very largely to 
their being recognized as of divine appointment. 

For instance, the Roman theologians for centuries appealed to the 
false decretals and to the interpolated text of St. Cyprian's "De Unitate 
EcclesicB " as to authentic documents witnessing to the belief of the uni- 
versal church with regard to the Papacy, and the learned never dared 
call in question such momentous evidences, though on other and rea- 
sonable grounds well inclined to do so. Yet the false decretals and 
Cyprian's interpolated passages were shameless fabrications. 

As a matter of fact, as Rufinus in his book, " De Adulteratione Li- 
brorum, Origenis," rightly remarks, it was pretty common in the early 
centuries of the church [and, we may add, all through the Middle Ages 
till the invention of the press], to corrupt the writings of the great 
ecclesiastical writers, forging new books or passages, altering the gen- 
uine ones, adding to them explanatory phrases, correcting what they 
believed to be misspellings of ignorant amanuenses, or mistranslations, 
as the case may be, suppressing this or that, reducing this text to a 
more orthodox tenor, and the like. Thus, says he, were corrupted and 
interpolated the writings of Tertullian, of St. Hilary, of St. Cyprian, 
and above all, of Origen." — " The Primitive Church and the Primacy of 
Rome," Prof. Giorgio Bartoli, pp. 104-106. New York: Hodder and 
Stoughton. 

Forgeries, The Sardican and Nicene Canons. — The conduct of 
the popes since Innocent I and Zosimus, in constantly quoting the Sar- 
dican Canon on appeals as a canon of Nice, cannot be exactly ascribed 
to conscious fraud — the arrangement of their collection of canons mis- 
led them. There was more deliberate purpose in inserting in the Roman 
manuscript of the sixth Nicene canon, " The Roman Church always had 
the primacy," of which there is no syllable in the original, — a fraud 
exposed at the Council of Chalcedon, to the confusion of the Roman 
legates, by reading the original. Toward the end of the fifth and be- 
ginning of the sixth century, the process of forgeries and fictions in the 
interests of Rome was actively carried on there. — " The Pope and the 
Council," Janus (Dr. J. J. Ign. von Dollinger) (R. C.J, pp. 122, 123, 
London: Rivingtons, 1869, 



FORGERIES 197 

Forgeries, Inteepolating St. Cyprian. — Toward the end of the sixth 
century a fabrication was undertaken in Rome, the full effect of which 
did not appear till long afterward. The famous passage in St. Cyp- 
rian's book, " On the Unity of the Church," was adorned, in Pope Pela- 
gius II's letter to the Istrian bishops, with such additions as the Roman 
pretensions required. St. Cyprian said that all the apostles had received 
from Christ equal power and authority with Peter, and this was too 
glaring a contradiction of the theory set up since the time of Gelasius. 
So the following words were interpolated : " The primacy was given to 
Peter to show the unity of the church and of the chair. How can he 
believe himself to be in the church who forsakes the chair of Peter, on 
which the church is built? " — " The Pope and the Council," Janus (Dr. 
J. J. Ign. von Dollinger) (R. C.J, p. 1S7. London: Rivingtons, 1859. 

Forgeries, Donation of Constantine. — After the middle of the 
eighth century, the famous Donation of Constantine was concocted at 
Rome. It is based on the earlier fifth-century legend of his cure from 
leprosy, and baptism by Pope Silvester, which is repeated at length, 
and the emperor is said, out of gratitude, to have bestowed Italy and 
the western provinces on the Pope, and also to have made many regu- 
lations about the honorary prerogatives and dress of the Roman clergy. 
The Pope is, moreover, represented as lord and master of all bishops, 
and having authority over the four great thrones of Antioch, Alexandria, 
Constantinople, and Jerusalem. 

The forgery betrayed its Roman authorship in every line; it is self- 
evident that a cleric of the Lateran Church was the composer. — Id., pp. 
131, 132. 

Donatio Constantini. — By this name is understood, since the end of 
the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, 
by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the 
Pope and the Roman Church. In the oldest known (ninth century) 
manuscript fBibliotheque Nationale, Paris, MS. Latin 2777) and in 
many other manuscripts the document bears the title: '' Constitutum 
Domni Constantini Imperatoris." . . . This document is without doubt 
a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850. — The 
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, art. " Donation," pp. 118, 119. 

Forgeries, Gratian's Work. — The corruption of the thirty-sixth 
canon of the ecumenical council of 692 is Gratian's own doing. It 
renewed the canon of Chalcedon (451), which gave the Patriarch of 
New Rome, or Constantinople, equal rights with the Roman Patriarch. 
Gratian, by a change of two words, gives it a precisely opposite sense, 
and suppresses the reference to the canon of Chalcedon. He also re- 
duces the five patriarchs to four; for the ancient equality of position 
of the Roman Bishop and the four chief bishops of the East was now 
to disappear, though even the Gregorians, as, e. g., Anselm, had treated 
him as one of the patriarchs. — " The Pope and the Council," Janus (Dr. 
J. J. Ign. von Dollinger [R. C.]), pp. 144, 145. London: Rivingtons, 
1869. 

Forgeries, A Canon Changed. — The canon of the African Synod, 

— that immovable stumblingblock of all papalists, — which forbids any 
appeal beyond the seas, i. e., to Rome, Gratian adapted to the service 
of the new system by an addition which made the synod aflBrm precisely 
what it denies. If Isidore undertook by his fabrications to annul the 
old law forbidding bishops being moved from one see' to another, Gra- 
tian, following Anselm and Cardinal Gregory, improved on this by a 
fresh forgery, appropriating to the Pope alone the right of translation. 

— 7d., pp. 146. 147. 



198 GENEALOGY OF CHRIST 

Forgeries, St. Cyprian's Treatise. — The reader may have re- 
marked that I gave the most beautiful extract of Cyprian's treatise "On 
the Unity of the Church " according to the Oxford translation. I did so 
in order to leave out the shameful Roman interpolations of the same 
passage. The words interpolated are well known: 

" He builds His church upon that one [Peter], and to him intrusts 
his sheep to he fed. . . . 

** He established one chair and ... 

" And primacy is given to Peter, that one church of Christ and one 
chair may he pointed out; and all are pastors and one flock is shown, 
to he fed hy all the apostles imth one-hearted accord, 

** He who deserts the chair of Peter, on which the church was 
founded, does he trust that he is in the church? " 

Now, the words in italics are spurious. " The history of their inter- 
polation," says Archbishop Benson, " may be distinctly traced even 
now, and it is as singular as their controversial importance has been 
unmeasured. Their insertion in the pages of " De Unitate Ecclesiw " 
[" On the Unity of the Church "] is a forgery which has deceived an army 
of scholars and caused the allegiance of unwilling thousands to Rome. 
— " The Primitive Church and the Primacy of Rome," Prof. Giorgio 
Bartoli, pp. 88, 89. New York: Hodder and Stoughton. 

I do not mention here the attempts that have been made to find a 
trace of the interpolated passages in the writings of Prudentius, Am- 
brose, and Augustine, because they all failed miserably. The interpo- 
lation, therefore, is certain, and is admitted now by all scholars. Cath- 
olic as well as Protestant, although in most Roman seminaries this is 
still simply ignored. — Id., p. 93. 

Genealogy, Importance of, to the Jews. — The promise of the land 
of Canaan to the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob successively, and 
the separation of the Israelites from the Gentile world; the expecta- 
tion of Messiah as to spring from the tribe of Judah; the exclusively 
hereditary priesthood of Aaron with its dignity and emoluments; the 
long succession of kings in the line of David; and the whole division 
and occupation of the land upon genealogical principles by the tribes, 
families, and houses of fathers, gave a deeper importance to the science 
of genealogy among the Jews than perhaps any other nation. When 
Zerubbabel brought back the captivity from Babylon, one of his first 
cares seems to have been to take a census of those that returned, and 
to settle them according to their genealogies. Passing on to the time 
of the birth of Christ, we have a striking incidental proof of the con- 
tinuance of the Jewish genealogical econoiny in the fact that when Au- 
gustus ordered the census of the empire to be taken, the Jews in the 
province of Syria immediately went each one to his own city. The Jew- 
ish genealogical records continued to be kept till near the destruction 
of Jerusalem. — "A Dictionary of the Bihle," William Smith, LL. D., 
pp. 209, 210, Teacher* s edition. Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, copy- 
right 1884. 

Genealogy of Christ, — David's successor was his son Solomon, 
and Matthew traces the genealogy through Solomon to Joseph; but the 
bar was put up against him at the time of the captivity and the last 
king, Jechoniah (1: 11). Luke traces the genealogy, not through Solo- 
mon, but through another son of David against whom there was no bar, 
viz., Nathan (Luke 3: 31; 1 Chron. 3: 5), and so on down to Mary, for 
only through her was the imposed condition fulfilled that Jesus should 



GENEALOGY OP CHRIST 199 

be "the fruit of David's body." And it could have been fulfilled only 
by some one in that line. Luke 1: 32; Acts 2: 30; Rom. 1:3; Acts 
13 : 23. It seems indubitable, therefore, — the " scholars " to the con- 
trary notwithstanding, — that Luke does not trace the royal line of 
Joseph as does Matthew, but gives the lineage which belongs to Mary. 

But the other obstacle: while Mary was of a royal line, she was not 
of the royal lineage — the regular, legal, required lineage through which 
it was indispensable that descent must course — not of the Prince of 
Wales line, so to speak, if such an illustrative anachronism can be 
allowed. How, then, could her son get into that royal line? Why, by 
her marriage with some one who was in that line! And that is just 
what took place — the marriage with Joseph. 

The absolute necessity for the two genealogies thus seems apparent; 
but there is a seeming discrepancy which needs to be solved. According 
to Matthew 1: 16, Joseph is the son of Jacob, and according to Luke' 
3: 23 he is the son of Heli. He could hardly be the son of both. 

Joseph was the son of Jacob in the strict sense, for Matthew says: 
" Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, 
who is called Christ" (1: 16). But Luke does not say that Heli degat 
Joseph, but says, "Joseph, which was ... of Heli" (3: 23), the trans- 
lators gratuitously putting in the words, " the son." Remembering the 
omnibus-content of the word " son " before noted,i manifestly we need 
to put into it the meaning which the situation here calls for, which is 
son-in-law; even as in 1 Samuel 24: 16, where Saul says, " Is this thy 
voice, my son David? " when David was his son-in-law. So, as Joseph 
could not, by natural generation, be the son of both Jacob and Heli, 
and as it says that " Jacob begat Joseph " and does not say that Heli 
begat Joseph, the natural and satisfactory explanation is that Joseph 
was the son-in-law of Heli. 

There is another consideration that seems to add conclusiveness to 
the foregoing. The Jews, in constructing their genealogical tables, reck- 
oned descent entirely in the line of males, and when the line passed 
from father to grandson through a daughter, the daughter herself was 
not named, but her husband was counted as the son of the maternal 
grandfather. Thus it is plain how Joseph, the actual son of Jacob, who 
married the daughter of Heli, is, as son-in-law, put in the genealogy 
as Hell's son. 

Joseph's right to the Davidic throne was not voided by the Jecho- 
niah inhibition, — only the occupancy of it. Thus Jesus acquired the 
right to the throne of David through his reputed (step-) father, Joseph, 
and is eligible to sit on it as David's son through Mary. As Wilkinson 
puts it: "By that marriage Jesus escapes the two barriers in the gene- 
alogy of Matthew, and walks over the one barrier in the genealogy of 
Luke. The two genealogies were necessary." — "A Study in the Gene- 
alogy of Jesus'' Rev. William H. Bates, D. D., Washington, D. C. Re- 
printed from the Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1917. 

The line in Matthew is the regal line through Solomon, exhausted 
in Joseph. The line in Luke is the legal line through Nathan, an elder 
brother (2 Sam. 5: 14), exhausted in Mary. — "The Companion Bible,'' 
note on Matt. 1:6. London: Oxford University Press. 



1 We commonly understand by a son, one begotten by a father and born of a 
mother. Now, the Hebrew language has no word for grandson, and so, with the 
Hebrews, a *' son " may be a lineal male descendant more than one remove down 
the line. Daniel, addressing Belshazzar, says : *' God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy 
father" (5:18), "and thou his son, O Belshazzar" (5:22), although the re- 
lation between them was that of grandfather and grandson. And Christ speaks 
of Zaccheus as "a son of Abraham" (Luke 19:9), though Abraham lived some 
two thousand years before. Accordingly, between two names that stand in juxta- 
position as father and son, it is possible that a number of names may intervene. 



200 GENEALOGY OF CHRIST 

Genealogy of Christ, According to Luke. — Godet, Lange, and many 
others take the ground that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, render- 
ing Luke 3:23 thus: Jesus "being (as was supposed) the son of 
Joseph, [but in reality] the son of Heli." In this case Mary, as de- 
clared in the Targums, was the daughter of Heli, and Heli was the 
grandfather of Jesus. Mary's name was omitted because " ancient 
sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the 
genealogical link." So we often find in the Old Testament the grandson 
called the son. This view has this greatly in its favor, that it shows 
that Jesus was not merely the legal but the actual descendant of David; 
and it would be very strange that in the Gospel accounts, where so 
much is made of Jesus' being the son and heir of David and of his 
kingdom, his real descent from David should not be given. — "A Dic- 
tionary of the Bible," William Smith, LL. D., p. 210, Teacher's edition. 
Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, copyright 1884. 

Genealogy of Christ, Matthew and Luke Harmonized. — Later, 
and chiefly among Protestant divines, the theory was invented of one 
genealogy being Joseph's, and the other Mary's, a theory in direct con- 
tradiction to the plain letter of the Scripture narrative, and leaving un- 
touched as many difficulties as it solves. The fertile invention of 
Annius of Viterbo forged a book in Philo's name, which accounted for 
the discrepancies by asserting that all Christ's ancestors, from David 
downward, had two names. The circumstance, however, of one line run- 
ning up to Solomon, and the other to Nathan, was overlooked. Other 
fanciful suggestions have been offered; while infidels, from Porphyry 
downward, have seen in what they call the contradiction of Matthew and 
Luke a proof of the spuriousness of the Gospels; and critics like Pro- 
fessor Norton, a proof of such portions of Scripture being interpolated. 
Others, like Alford, content themselves with saying that solution is 
impossible, without further knowledge than we possess. But it is not 
too much to say that after all, in regard to the main points, there is no 
difficulty at all, if only the documents in question are dealt with rea- 
sonably, and after the analogy of similar Jewish documents in the Old 
Testament; and that the clues to a right understanding of them are so 
patent and so strongly marked that it is surprising that so much diver- 
sity of opinion should have existed. The following propositions will 
explain the true construction of these genealogies: 

1. They are both the genealogies of Joseph, i. e., of Jesus Christ, as 
the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary. One has only to read 
them to be satisfied of this. The notices of Joseph as being of the house 
of David, by the same evangelists who give the, pedigree, are an addi- 
tional confirmation (Matt. 1: 20; Luke 1: 27; 2: 4, etc.), and if these 
pedigrees were extracted from the public archives, they must have been 
Joseph's. 

2. The genealogy of St. Matthew is, as Grotius most truly and unhesi- 
tatingly asserted, Joseph's genealogy as legal successor to the throne of 
David, i. e., it exhibits the successive heirs of the kingdom, ending with 
Christ as Joseph's reputed son. St. Luke's is Joseph's private genealogy, 
exhibiting his real birth, as David's son, and thus showing why he was 
heir to Solomon's crown. This is capable of being almost demonstrated. 
If St. Matthew's genealogy had stood alone, and we had no further in- 
formation on this subject than it affords, we might indeed have thought 
that it was a genealogical stem in the strictest sense of the word, exhib- 
iting Joseph's forefathers in succession, from David downward. But 
immediately we find a second genealogy of Joseph, — 'that in St. Luke's 
Gospel, — such is no longer a reasonable opinion. Because if St. Mat- 
thew's genealogy, tracing as it does the successive generations through 



GENEALOGY OF CHRIST 201 

the long line of Jewish kings, had been Joseph's real paternal stem, there 
Gould not possibly have been room for a second genealogy. The steps 
of ancestry coinciding with the steps of succession, one pedigree only 
could in the nature of thingg be proper. The mere existence therefore 
of a second pedigree, tracing Joseph's ancestry through private persons, 
by the side of one tracing it through kings, is in itself a proof that the 
latter is not the true stem of birth. 

When, with this clue, we examine St. Matthew's list, to discover 
whether it contains in itself any evidence as to when the lineal descent 
was broken, we fix at once upon Jechonias, who could not, we know, 
be literally the father of Salathiel, because the word of God by the 
mouth of Jeremiah had pronounced him childless, and declared that 
none of his seed should sit upon the throne of David, or rule in Judah. 
Jer. 22: 30. The same thing had been declared concerning his father 
Jehoiakim in Jeremiah 36: 30. Jechonias therefore could not be the 
father of Salathiel, nor could Christ spring either from him or his 
father. Here then we have the most striking confirmation of the justice 
of the inference drawn from finding a second genealogy, viz., that St. 
Matthew gives the succession, not the strict birth; and we conclude that 
the names after the childless Jechonias are those of his next heirs, as 
also in 1 Chronicles 3: 17. 

One more look at the two genealogies convinces us that this con- 
clusion is just; for we find that the two next names following Jechonias, 
Salathiel and Zorobabel, are actually taken from the other genealogy, 
which teaches us that Salathiel's real father was Neri, of the house of 
Nathan. It becomes therefore perfectly certain that Salathiel of the 
house of Nathan became heir to David's throne on the failure of Solo- 
mon's line in Jechonias, and that as such he and his descendants were 
transferred as " sons of Jechoniah " to the royal genealogical table, ac- 
cording to the principle of the Jewish law laid down [in] Numbers 27 : 
8-11. The two genealogies then coincide for two, or rather for four, 
generations, as will be shown below. There then occur six names in St. 
Matthew, which are not found in St. Luke; and then once more the two 
genealogies coincide in the name of Matthan or Matthat (Matt. 1: 15; 
Luke 3: 24), to whom two different sons, Jacob and Heli, are assigned, 
but one and the same grandson and heir, Joseph, the husband of Mary, 
and the reputed father of Jesus, who is called Christ. 

The simple and obvious explanation of this is, on the same principle 
as before, that Joseph was descended from Joseph, a younger son of 
Abiud (the Juda of Luke 3: 26), but that on the failure of the line of 
Abiud's eldest son in Eleazar, Joseph's grandfather Matthan became the 
heir; that Matthan had two sons, Jacob and Heli; that Jacob had no son, 
and consequently that Joseph, the son of his younger brother Heli, be- 
came heir to his uncle and to the throne of David. 

Thus the simple principle that one evangelist exhibits that gene- 
alogy which contained the successive heirs to David's and Solomon's 
throne, while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the 
heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees, their agreements 
as well as their discrepancies, and the circumstance of there being two 
at all. It must be added that not only does this theory explain all the 
phenomena, but that that portion of it which asserts that Luke gives 
Joseph's paternal stem receives a most remarkable confirmation from 
the names which compose that stem. For if we begin with Nathan, we 
find that his son, Mattatha, and four others, of whom the last was 
grandfather to Joseph, had names which are merely modifications of 
Nathan (Matthat twice, and Mattathias twice); or if we begin with 
Joseph, we shall find no less than three of his name between him a,nd 



202 



GENEALOGY OF CHRIST 



Nathan: an evidence, of the most convincing kind, that Joseph was lin- 
eally descended from Nathan in the way St. Lruke represents him to be 
(comp. Zech. 12: 12). 

3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in all probability the daughter 
of Jacob, and fiirst cousin to Joseph her husband. So that in point of 
fact, though not of form, both the genealogies are as much hers as her 
husband's. ... 

The following pedigree will exhibit the successive generations as 
given by the two evangelists: 



According 


Adam 




1 


to 


1 




Saruch (Serug) 


St. Luke 


Seth 

I 
Enos 

■I 




1 
Nachor 

1 
Thara (Terah) 




Cainan 




1 




1 


According 


Abraham 




Maleleel 


to 


1 




1 


Matthew and 


[saac 




Jared 

1 


Luke 


1 
Jacob 




Enoch 

1 




1 
Judah 




Mathusala 

1 




Pharez 




Lamech 

1 


- 


1 
Ezrom 




Noah 

■ 1 




Aram (Ram) 




Shem 

1 




Aminadab 




Arphaxad 

1 




1 
Naasson 




Cainan 

1 




1 
Salmon=Rachab 




Sala 

1 




Booz=:Ruth 




Heber 

1 




Obed 




Phalec (Peleg) 
1 




Jesse 




Ragau (Reu) 




1 
David=:Bathsheba 

1 


According 


1 . 
Solom_on 


According 


1 

Nathan 


to 


1 


to 


1 


Matthetv 


Roboam 


Luke 


Mattatha 




Abia 




Menan 




Asa 

1 




Melea 




Josaphat 

1 




Eliakim 




1 
Joram (Ahaziah 




Jonan 




Joash, Amaziah) 







GENEALOGY OF CHRIST 



203 



Matthew 



Ozias 

I 
Joatham 

I 
Achaz 

I 
Ezekias 

I 
Manasses 

I 
Amon 

I 
Josias 

I 
Jechonias (i, e., Jehoia- 

kim) and his brothers 

(i. e., Jehoahaz, Zede- 

kiah, and Shallum) 

I 
Jechonias (1. e., Jehoia- 

chin), childless 



(Matthew a/nd Luke) 



Joseph 

I 
Juda 

I 
Simeon 

I 
Levi 

I 
Matthat 

I 
Jorim 

I 
Eliezer 

I 
Jose 

I 
Er 

I 
Elmodam 

I 
Cosam 

I 
Addi 

I 
Melchi 

Neri 



His heir was Salathiel 

I 
Zorobabel (the Prince of Rhesa) 

Joanna (Hananiah, in 1 Chron. 3:19, 
omitted by Matthew, 1: 13) 

I 
Juda, or Ab-iud (Hodaiah, 1 Chron. 

3: 24) 



Eliakim 

I 
Azor 

I 
Sadoc 

I 
Achim 

I 
Eliud 

I 
Eleazar 



Luke 



Joseph 

I 
Semei 

I 
Mattathias 

I 
Maath 

I 
Nagge 

I 
Esli 

I 
Naum 

Amos 

I 
Mattathias 



204 GENEALOGY OF CHRIST 



Joseph 

1 
Janna 

I 
Melchi 

I 
Levi 



{Matthew and Luke) 



Matthew His heir was Matthan or Matthat Luke 



Jacob Heli 

I (Matthew and Luke) I 



Mary^Jacob's heir was Joseph 

I 
Jesus, called Christ 

Thus it will be seen that the whole number of generations from 
Adam to Christ, both inclusive, is 74, without the second Cainan and 
Rhesa. — "A Dictionary of the Bible,'' William Smith, LL. D., Vol. I, pp. 
665-668. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1863. 

Genealogies of Christ. — There are two distinct genealogies given 
in the introductions of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels: the former, 
principally designed for the Jews, traces his pedigree as the promised 
seed, downward, from Abraham to David; and from him, through Solo- 
mon's line, to Jacob, the father of Joseph, who was the reputed or legal 
father of Christ. Matt. 1: 1-16. The latter, designed for the Gentiles 
also, traces it upward, from Heli, the father of Mary, to David, through 
his son Nathan's line, and from David to Abraham, concurring with 
the former, and from Abraham up to Adam, who was the immediate 
"son of God," born without father or mother. Luke 3: 23-38. 

That Luke gives the pedigree of Mary, the real mother of Christ, 
may be collected from the following reasons: 

1. The angel Gabriel, at the annunciation, told the virgin, that 
" God would give her divine Son the throne of his father David " (Luke 
1: 32); and this was necessary to be proved, by her genealogy, after- 
ward. 

2. Mary is called by the Jews, ^br .'^^, " the daughter of Eli " (Light- 
foot, on Luke 3: 23) ; and by the early Christian writers, " the daughter 
of Joakim and Anna." But Joakim and Eliakim (as being derived from 
the names of God, "*"" , lahoh, and Sj,^», ^^IJ are sometimes inter- 
changed. 2 Chron. 36: 4. Eli, therefore, or Heli, is the abridgment of 
Eliakim. . . . 

3. A similar case in point occurs elsewhere in the genealogy. After 
the Babylonish captivity, the two lines of Solomon and Nathan, the 
sons of David, unite in the generations of Salathiel and Zorobabel, and 
thence diverge again in the sons of the latter, Abiud and Resa. Hence, 
as Salathiel, in Matthew, was the son of Jechoniah, or Jehoiachin, who 
was carried away into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, so in Luke Sala- 
thiel must have been the grandson of Neri, by his mother's side. 

4. The evangelist himself has critically distinguished the real from 
the legal genealogy, by a parenthetical remark; *Ir}<Tov$ wv {m ivoixi^eTo, vibs 
*Iw(n70, [dW 6vT(j}s]) vibs tov 'HM \_Iesous on (hos enomizeto, huios loseph, 
lalV ontosi) huios tou Heli}. "Jesus — being (as was reputed, the 



GENESIS 20 5 

son of Joseph, [but in reality] ) the son of Heli," or his grandson hy the 
mother's side; for so should the ellipsis involved in the parenthesis be 
supplied. — "A Islew Analysis of Chronology and Geography" Rev. Wi^ 
Uam Hales, D. D., Vol. Ill, pp. 42, 43. London: C. J. G. & F. Rivington, 
1830. 

Genesis, U:mty of. — The positive and irrefragable argument for 
the unity of Genesis is that it is a continuous and connected whole, writ- 
ten with a definite design and upon an evident plan which is steadfastly 
maintained throughout. The critics attribute this to the skill of the 
redactor. But they impose upon him an impossible task. An author may 
draw his materials from a great variety of sources, form his own con- 
ception of his subject, elaborate it after a method of his own, and thus 
give unity to his production. But a compiler, who simply weaves to- 
gether extracts selected from separate authorities, has not the freedom 
of the author, and cannot do the same kind of work. He is trammeled 
by the nature of his undertaking. He cannot reconstruct his materials 
and adapt them to one another; he must accept them as he finds them. 
And now, if these authorities, as is alleged, were prepared with different 
aims and from diverse points of view, if they are unlike in style and 
diction and discordant in their statements, he never could produce the 
semblance of unity in his work. The difference of texture would show 
itself at the points of junction. There would inevitably be chasms, 
and abrupt transitions, and a want of harmony between the parts. 
Such a work as Genesis could not have been produced in this way. — 
" Tlie Unity of the Book of Genesis," William Henry Green, D. D., 
LL. D., pp. 554, 555. London: Richard D. Dickinson, 1902. 

Genesis, Light ox, fbom Babylon. — The marvelous discoveries of 
the last half-century have thrown a flood of light on the ancient Oriental 
world, and some of this light has necessarily been reflected on the book 
of Genesis. The monuments of Egypt, of Babylonia, and of Assyria have 
been rescued from their hiding places, and the writing upon them has 
been made to speak once more in living words. A dead world has 
been called again to life by the spade of the excavator and the patient 
labor of the decipherer. We find ourselves, as it were, face to face with 
Sennacherib, with Nebuchadnezzar, and with Cyrus, with those whose 
names have been familiar to us from childhood, but who have hitherto 
been to us mere names, mere shadowy occupants of an unreal world. 
Thanks to the research of the last half-century, we can now penetrate 
into the details of their daily life, can examine their religious ideas, 
can listen to them as they themselves recount the events of their own 
time or the traditions of the past which had been handed down to them. 

It is more especially in Babylonia and Assyria that we flnd illus- 
trations of the earlier chapters of Genesis, as, indeed, is only natural. 
The Semitic languag^e spoken in these two countries was closely allied 
to that of the Old Testament, as closely, in fact, as two modern English 
dialects are allied to each other; and it was from' Babylonia, from Ur 
of the Chaldees, now represented by the mounds of Mugheir, that Abra- 
ham made his way to the future home of his descendants in the West. 
It is to Babylonia that the Biblical accounts of the fall, of the deluge, 
and of the confusion of tongues particularly look; two of the rivers of 
Paradise were the Tigris and Euphrates, the ark rested on the moun- 
tains of Ararat, and the city built around the tower which men designed 
should reach to heaven was Babel, or Babylon. Babylonia was an older 
kingdom than Assyria, which took its name from the city of Assur, 
now Kalah Sherghat, on the Tigris, the original capital of the country. 
It was divided into two halves, Accad (Gen. 10: 10) being northern 



206 t^EOliOGY 

Babylonia, and Sumir, the Shinar of the Old Testament, southern 
Babylonia. . . . 

At an early date, which cannot yet, however, be exactly determined, 
the Sumirians and Accadians were overrun and conquered by the 
Semitic Babylonians of later history, Accad being apparently the first 
half of the country to fall under the sway of the newcomers. It is pos- 
sibly that Casdim, the Hebrew word translated " Chaldees " or " Chal- 
deans " in the Authorized Version, is the Babylonian casidi, or " con- 
querors," a title which continued to cling to them in consequence of 
their conquest. — " Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments," A. H. 
Sayce, M. A., pp. 19, 20. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. 

Geology, Assumptions of. — 1. The whole science of the modern 
classification of the rocks into successive " ages " rests upon two pure 
assumptions: (a) That the action of the elements during all past time 
has been uniform with the present in character, perhaps in degree; 
(6) that there has been a development, or at least a succession, in the 
life upon the globe. 

2. The first of these assumptions is a point-blank denial of the 
record of the deluge. 

3. The second being the very backbone of the evolution theory, it 
is preposterous to bring in their geology as evidence for evolution. 
It is " circular " reasoning of the most glaring kind. 

4. From the Biblical standpoint this succession of life is but the 
classification or taxonomic series in the life of the antediluvian world. 

5. The various phenomena of canons and river gorges might reason- 
ably have been accomplished within the limits of Biblical time, if the 
action of the elements began when the deposits were soft and freshly 
laid. 

6. The successive strata of coal have not been proved, and cannot 
be proved, to have been produced by growth in situ. The same may 
also be said of the limestones. On the contrary, both the limestones 
and the coal beds often give us unmistakable evidence that they were 
buried or formed suddenly in some extraordinary way. 

7. The fossils invariably supply us with specimens larger of their 
kind, and showing a far more complete all-round development, than 
their modern specific representatives, if they have any, whether crus- 
taceans, vertebrate fishes, insects, reptiles, marsupial or placental mam- 
mals, or even man. 

8. Many of these relics of ancient life are found together in such 
vast numbers as utterly to preclude the supposition that they were ac- 
cumulated in any ordinary way; while they are in just such position 
and numbers as we might expect if thousands of them had been drifted 
together on the surface of the water to the foothills of the great moun- 
tain ranges, and buried there by the storms of the subsiding deluge. 

9. The numerous examples of the sudden appearance of species, 
as well as the numerous breaks in life between successive formations, 
are just what we should expect if these arrangements are only tax- 
onomic classifications in a complete world destroyed at one and the same 
time. 

10. All the "formations," so far as we can judge, give us proofs of 
a milder and more equable climate than we have at present. 

11. All, save the Cambrian and Laurentian, which are largely 
metamorphic, give us very coarse conglomerates, unstratified, angular 
deposits, or large " traveled " boulders, which have usually been attrib- 
uted to ice action, with all the involved absurdities of something worse 
than a " rotation of climates." But all of these phenomena are readily 
accounted for on the hypothesis of a violent and universal deluge. 



GEOLOGY 207 

12. The glacial theory, as generally received, involves so many ab- 
surdities that it is pronounced by one of the latest and best authorities 
to be " the wildest dream which a fertile imagination ever imported 
into science." 

13. The discovery of well-developed human remains in Pliocene, 
perhaps Miocene, strata is one of the strongest possible proofs that 
these names do not and cannot possibly represent " ages," but simply 
taxonomic classifications in the life of the antediluvian world. 

14. The lignites and coal seams of the Secondary and Tertiary 
rocks were undoubtedly covered up at the same time as the Carbonif- 
erous deposits, or the " true coal " formations, there being absolutely 
nothing save the visionary succession of life to prove that they were 
not contemporaneous. 

15. In short, the destruction of a whole world of magnificently 
developed plant and animal life by the violent waters of a universal 
deluge is seen to be not only possible, but scientifically certain. The 
evidence therefore explains the geological phenomena far more easily 
than a century of ingenious guessing along the lines of uniformitarian- 
ism has done. To plain common sense the rocky leaves of nature's 
diary are even now becoming eloquent to the truth of Genesis, just as 
the monuments of Assyria and Egypt have these many years confirmed 
in thunder tones the truth of Old Testament history. — " Outlines of 
Modern Christianity and Modern Science,^' George McCready Price, 
pp. 195-198. Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Press Publishing Company, copy- 
right 1902. 

Geology, The Fossil World a Unit. — 'The broad, general fact is 
that the remains of man, and thousands of living species of plants and 
animals, are found in stratified rocks, spread out by flowing water, 
ofteUj sea water; but the place of these deposits, now high and dry, it 
may be thousands of feet above the sea level, has not been occupied by 
the sea since the dawn of scientific observation. Land and sea have at 
some time been all mixed up together, or have exchanged places. And, 
according to the best authorities of the day, such as Zittel, Fuchs, and 
Suess, nothing in the nature of a gradual tendency toward such a 
mutual exchange- of land and water, is now going on anywhere on earth. 
Hence we have no natural way to account for this exchange of land 
and water, except by saying that something happened to our world 
long ago, before the dawn of recorded history, which was thoroughly 
different in kind as well as in degree from anything now going on. 

It is not necessary for us to discuss here the questions relating to 
the antiquity of man, as it is popularly understood. The question of 
how far back in geological time man actually lived, is for us, who have 
discarded the myth of the successive geological ages, wholly a false 
way of looking at the subject. "Why should we attempt to decide 
whether Pliocene or Miocene or Eocene shells are found with these fossil 
human remains? 

That man lived in Western Europe contemporary with those giants 
of that older world, the elephant and the musk ox, the rhinocerous and 
the reindeer, the lion, the cape hyena, and the hippopotamus, at a time 
when most of our mountains had no existence, but their places were 
occupied by great stretches of ocean, while a soft, vernal climate man- 
tled all the northern regions and clear within the arctic circle, are truths 
which all admit. Such facts are now found in the textbooks for our 
children in the public schools. 

Th© really important fact is that human remains are found fossil, 
just the same as other forms of life, and that there is absolutely no 
way of proving that these fossil men are not as old as any other fossils. 



208 GEOLOGY 

Whatever proves the latter old, does the same for the former; but if 
we insist on the comparatively modern character of these fossil human 
remains, we must admit the same for all other fossils, because, as 
already shown, inductive science insists that the fossil world was a 
unit, and that man was contemporary with all alike. True science can 
never take us back of this state when all existed contemporaneously 
together; for it would require a supernatural knowledge of the past to 
discriminate among the fossils, and say that any particular group existed 
before the others, and occupied the world exclusively for ages before the 
others came into existence. — " QoWs Two Books," George McCready 
Price, pp. 161-163. Washington, D. C: Review andi Herald PuhlisTiing 
Association, 1911. 

Geology, Theoky of Uniformity Disproved. — 1. The fossils found 
in the stratified rocks are, as a rule, very abnormal in their abundance, 
for exceedingly few fossils are now being made in our modern world. 
They are also abnormal in their (generally) splendid preservation, 
mere fragments being about all that our modern world can show as 
materials for fossilization. 

2. There is but one climate known to geology proper, and this cli- 
mate was astonishingly mild and warm over the entire globe. 

" The spring 
Perpetual smiled on earth with verdant flowers." 

But the elephants and other animals found frozen in the ice of 
northern Siberia are the best of contemporary vouchers that this climate 
was " abruptly terminated," as Dana says, and became " suddenly ex- 
treme as of a single winter's night." Other considerations just as 
conclusively prove that this change of climate was not local, but world 
wide in extent. 

3. When looked at broadly, the fossils are seen to be quite gen- 
erally larger and better developed than their nearest living repre- 
sentatives. And if we can hold suh judice the theory of successive geo- 
logical " ages," until this point also can be considered, we shall think 
it very significant that this splendid development is characteristic of 
the fossils of all the various formations, and that when we cross over 
into our modern era, the change in the fossils is just as sudden and com- 
plete as is that of climate. 

4. Deposits like those of the strata containing the fossils are not 
now being formed anywhere in our deep seas or oceans. The work of 
the Challenger expedition, with many subsequent investigations, has 
proved that in the deep ocean absolutely no true stratigraphical deposits 
are now being made. When we get out beyond the narrow continental 
shelf, from end to end over the whole ocean fioor there is no gravel, 
no sand, no clay being shifted or deposited in modern times, nothing 
whatever to disturb the eternal calm of the silent waters. As Geikie 
remarks of the deposits now lying on the bottom of our modern ocean, 
"They have no analogues among the formations of the earth's crust;" 
that is, these modern deposits are distinctly different in mechanical 
make-up from those beds which compose our dry land, laid down in 
the ancient time, although these latter contain abundant remains of 
animals that once lived in the deep waters of the ocean. 

5. Leading geologists, like Howorth and Suess, have critically ex- 
amined the evidence supposed to indicate that gradual changes of land 
and sea level are now going on; and they have proved conclusively 
that such alleged changes are not now in progress. To quote the words 
of Suess himself: "The theory of the secular oscillations of the 
continents is not competent to explain the repeated inundation and 



GEBIZIM AND EBAI. 209 

emergence of the land; " for even in those localities, like Sweden and 
Greenland, whose coasts have been supposed to be rising or falling, 
"displacements susceptible of measurement have not occurred within 
the historic period." 

In short, this prince of modern geologists, after an exhaustive ex- 
amination of the scientific literature of all civilized countries, thus 
writes the epitaph of the old theory of the gradual and continuous ex- 
change of land and water: "Thus, as our knowledge becomes more 
exact, the less are we able to entertain those theories which are gen- 
erally offered in explanation of the repeated inundation and emergence 
of the continents." 

Thus on five separate counts we have evidence of the bankruptcy 
of the theory of uniformity as an explanation of how the geological 
changes took place; and if we presently find, on a study of the geo- 
logical " ages," that these " ages " based on the fossils as time tickets 
are wholly mythical and unscientific, we shall not have to explain any 
" repeated " inundation and emergence of the continents, but can assign 
one major geological event as suflacient to explain the whole. For ac- 
cording to the familiar adage in logic known as Occam's razor, or the 
law of parsimony, no more causes are to be admitted than are sufficient 
to explain the phenomena, — George McCready Price, M. A., in an article, 
"A Closed Question Reopened," in the Bihlical Review, July, 1919, 
pp. 442-444. 

Gerizim and Ebal. — Nothing is more striking to the traveler, even 
now, when he has climbed the high ridge of the watershed which sepa- 
rates the rounded hills and shut-in valleys of Bethel and Ai — that com- 
paratively barren country — than the great change a few miles of travel 
brings about: corn lands of great extent and fine woods of olive trees, 
culminating in the central position of Shechem. The " terebinths of 
Moreh " of Abraham's time are gone; but noble trees of olive, fig, and 
pomegranate have taken their place. Water is abundant, and therefore 
fertilizing mist is common. It would be a great feeding ground for the 
host of Israel, and was the abode of those Perizzites, " rustics " who do 
not appear to have had fortified towns, Joshua rears an altar, and 
afterward reads all the words of the law. The hills form a great amphi- 
theater, space and verge enough for all, a natural sounding gallery for 
Joshua's voice; every traveler can testify of this, I found that, standing 
on the slopes of Ebal, my men across the valley and on Gerizim could 
distinguish all I said. 

Interesting discoveries on both these mountains have been made by 
the officers of the Palestine Exploration Fund, Sir Charles Wilson, 
Major Anderson, and Major Conder. Of Ebal, the first-mentioned ex- 
plorer says: 

" The summit of Ebal is a comparatively level plateau of some ex- 
tent; there is no actual peak, but the ground rises toward the west. 
The view is one of the finest in the country, embracing Safed, Jebel, 
Jermuk, and Hermon on the north; Jaffa, Ramleh, and the maritime 
plain on the west, the heights above Bethel on the south, and the Hau- 
ran on the east. There is a ruin consisting of an inclosure ninety-two 
feet square, with walls twenty feet thick, built of selected unhewn 
stones, without mortar. Nothing in this building connects it with the 
altar erected by Joshua." Major Conder calls attention to a Moslem 
sacred site on the ridge of the mountain, not at its highest point, which 
is called the " Monument of the Faith," and he thinks this the true site 
of the altar. Samaritan tradition places the altar on Gerizim; " but this 
title, ' Monument of the Faith,' may be due to the idea the Crusaders 
14 



210 GERIZIM AND EBAL 

had that this was the Dan of Jeroboam's calf temple." We must not 
confuse the " altar " built by Joshua with the " great stone " which he 
afterward set up; but if we are to take the passage in Joshua 24: 26 as 
indicating the site of the " altar," then it was not on the hill, but in 
the valley, for the " great stone " was put up " under the oak that was 
by" (or in) "the sanctuary of the Lord," and this oak would probably 
be Abraham's oak. The heathen did erect altars and burn sacrifices 
on every high hill; but, as at Shiloh, the places selected for the altars 
to Jehovah were in valleys. 

Canon Tristram points out that " in the base of Mt. Gerizim is a 
very curious natural recess, eastward of the modern city, so regular that 
it looks as if hollowed artificially out of the rocky roots of the mountain, 
now a sacred inclosure of the Moslems, and called ' The Pillar.' Exactly 
opposite, in the base of Mt. Ebal, is a similar natural amphitheater." 
Only Moslems are allowed to enter the inclosure on the Gerizim side, 
and they say there still stands a column. Modern Samaritans also as- 
sert that this is the true site of the " great stone " set up by Joshua. 
Two hundred years after Joshua we read of " the oak of the pillar that 
was in Shechem." Judges 9: 6. Fourth-century writers speak of a 
" praying place outside the city resembling a theater." 

We are told Joshua wrote on the stones of the altar " a copy of the 
law of Moses." Does that mean that he engraved the whole law on the 
stones? No. If we refer to Deuteronomy 27: 2, 3, we shall see that 
the stones were to be covered with " plaister," and on this " plaister," 
the words would be written; the process, therefore, would be both easy 
and rapid. There is a great contrast between the barrenness of Mt. Ebal 
and the fertility of Gerizim. That may be due a good deal to the position 
of them. Ebal is steeper, and is the northern hill; Gerizim, the southern 
hill, so that was chosen for the mount of blessing, " life and light " being 
always associated with the south by the Jews. Gerizim was afterward 
chosen by the Samaritans for the site of their temple, and they claim, 
too, that it was the mountain" on which Abraham oitered up Isaac. This 
latter view has obtained some credence, but an examination of the Bible 
will show it could not be. Abraham was at Beersheba. It would be 
possible to reach Mt. Moriah, Jerusalem, in the three days spoken of; 
quite impossible to reach Shechem in that time, for remember, Abraham 
traveled on an ass. The distance alone between the two places is fatal 
to this theory, which was invented by the Samaritans to glorify the 
temple they had set up in opposition to that on Mt. Moriah. Standing 
on the plain, a small Moslem tomb cuts the sky line on the crest of 
Gerizim, and here are many ruins, with massive foundations; traces of 
a castle, some massive stones, called the " Twelve Stones," which Samar- 
itan traditions say were the stones set up by Joshua; and numerous 
cisterns. The " holy place " of the Samaritans is a sloping rock, which 
drains into a cistern. A mass of human bones was found lying in 
another inclosure. These " twelve stones " form a platform of unhewn 
masonry. The courses are four in number; no inscriptions were found 
on them. This platform is probably a portion of the Samaritan temple. 
Other ruins exist, most likely remains of the fortress Justinian ereqted 
there. Then there is the Samaritan "Holy of Holies," for the people 
take off their shoes when they approach it. The Passover is still eaten 
there, but the community is becoming very small. 

" Toward sunset a few men in white surplices recite a form of 
prayer near the circular pit in which the lambs are roasted; then all 
the full-grown men join, prayer and prostrations continue till sunset, 
when the priest rapidly repeats the twelfth chapter of E;xodus. The 
lambs are killed while the priest is speaking; they are skinned and 



GNOSTICISM 211 

cleaned, the bodies then placed in the pit till roasted; then the covering 
is taken off, the bodies drawn out and placed on brown mats; then they 
are taken to the trench and laid out in line between the two files of 
the Samaritans, who now have shoes on their feet and staves in their 
hands. Short prayers follow. They suddenly seat themselves, and com- 
mence to eat silently and rapidly until the whole is consumed." 

Sir Charles Wilson mentions one fact as to the distance the human 
voice can here be heard : that " during the excavations of Mt. Gerizim 
the Arab workmen were on more than one occasion heard conversing 
with men passing along the valley below." — " The Bible and Modern Dis- 
coveries," Henry A. Harper, pp. 152-155. London: Printed for the Com- 
mittee of the Palestine Exploration Fund by Alexander P. Watt, 1891. 

Gnosticism, Definition of. — An eclectic system of religion and 
philosophy, existing from the first to the sixth century. It attempted, 
in order to commend Christian doctrine to the philosophical tenets of 
the age, a system of mediation between the two, by teaching that knowl- 
edge, rather than faith, was the key to salvation, and incorporating 
some of the features of Platonism, Orientalism, and Dualism with Chris- 
tianity. The Gnostics held that God in himself is unknowable and 
unapproachable, but that all existences, material and spiritual, are 
derived from the Deity by successive emanations, or eons. Gnosticism 
borrowed certain elements from the current Persian philosophy, but 
more from the Greek doctrines connected with Neo-Platonic ideas of 
Logos and Nous. Christ was merely a superior eon. — New Standard 
Dictionary, art. " Gnosticism," p. 1047. New York: Funk and Wagnalls 
Company, 1913. 

Gnosticisni, Meaning of. — Gnosticism had its home in Egypt. A 
few things taken from Christianity were blended with Platonic philos- 
ophy, Jewish theology, and old Oriental theosophy. The word " Gnos- 
tic " comes from the Greek word gnosis, knowledge. They claimed a 
superior knowledge, but it was a science or knowledge " falsely so 
called." — ''The Bible and the British Museum.," Ada R. Habershon, 
p. 54. London: Morgan and Scott, 1909. 

Gnosticism, Peril of. — The crisis evoked by the assaults of Gnosti- 
cism was the greatest and most momentous in its consequences of all the 
convulsions to which Christianity was exposed in the course of its 
growth in the soil of antique civilization. Had Gnosticism not been 
overcome, then Christianity had forfeited its peculiar genius; torn loose 
from its historic foundation, it would have been drawn into the general 
vortex, thus perishing like the religions of collapsing paganism. — The 
New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Yol. IV, art. 
" Gnosticism," p. 499.- 

God, Names of. — 

1. Elohim 

The ordinary word translated by the English word " God " in the 
Old Testament is Elohim ( ^^n^N ) • Though plural in form, it is usu- 
ally singular in meaning, and takes a singular verb after it, as in Gen- 
esis Ir 1. It occurs about 2,555 times in the Old Testament, and is used 
in thirty-five out of the thirty-nine books, the exceptions being Canti- 
cles, Lamentations, Obadiah, and Esther. In all but 245 cases it refers 
to the one living and true God who revealed himself to Israel and 
claimed their worship and obedience. 

The singular form Eloah ( ,«-,<)^jy» ) occurs 57 times, chiefly in Job, 
almost always of the true God. The Aramaic form of the word is Elah 



212 GOD, NAMES OF 

(j^Ljj^,), almost the same as the Assyrian Ilu. It is found In Ezra and 
Daniel, also in the Aramaic message given in Jeremiah 10: 11. Alto- 
gether it occurs 37 times. 

The still shorter word El i^^) is used 204 times of the true God 
and 18 times of false gods; it occurs in most of the Old Testament 
books. Its plural form is never used of the true God. An examination 
of the passages where this word occurs shows that it is frequently used 
where some attribute of God is set forth, e. g., in the expression El 
Shaddai. 

Whatever the root and source of these words, there can be little 
doubt that they stood for the primitive idea, or rather revelation, of 
Deity as the first great cause of all things. 

2. Jehoyah 

The Hebrew name Jehovah ( TVin^ ) occurs about 5,500 times in the 
Old Testament. It is found in thirty-six out of thirty-nine books, the 
exceptions being Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles. Scholars are un- 
certain as to its origin, its pronunciation, and its meaning. It is incapa- 
ble of suflaxes such as are found in the case of Elohim; in fact, it is of 
the nature of a personal name, while Elohim indicates an office or posi- 
tion. The Hebrew language barely permits of composition except in the 
case of proper names, but the name Jehovah in a shortened form, 
answering to the Aramaic and Assyrian Jahu, is frequently found in 
such names as Hezekiah, Elijah, Jehoiakim, and (Moses' mother) Joch- 
ebed. The name Jah ( n^ ) is possibly the oldest form, or it may be con- 
tracted from the larger word. 

It has been a source of perplexity that in spite of the fact that the 
name Jehovah occurs many times in Genesis, especially in the patri- 
archal history, we read in Exodus 6 : 3 that the Lord says, " I appeared 
unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by (the name of) El Shaddai, 
but (by) my name Jehovah was I -not known to them." This perplexity 
is not altogether done away with by the discovery that the name in a 
slightly different form is found in ancient Chaldean documents. The 
name must have been known in the days of Abraham, and probably 
long before, but it was not fully understood. Do we understand it now? 
The passage just referred to brings out the fact that the Lord had made 
certain promises to the patriarchs which he was now — 400 years after 
— about to fulfil. Thus his eternity, his faithfulness, and his special 
interest in the seed of Abraham were to be kept in memory by this 
name. It was his memorial. On turning back to Exodus 3: 13 we find 
that Moses had said, " When I come to the children of Israel and say to 
them. The Grod of your fathers hath sent me to you, and they shall say 
to me. What is his name? what shall I say to them? And God said to 
Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And he said. Thus shalt thou say to the 
children of Israel, I AM hath sent me to you. . . . Jehovah, the God of 
your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of 
Jacob, hath sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my 
memorial unto all generations." Thus the Being who spoke to the 
patriarchs, who is named Jehovah, and who is described as I AM 
THAT I AM, is the one living and true God; and his name Jehovah is 
to be interpreted by the Hebrew root of it which lies in the word I 
AM. Compare Psalms 135:13, "Thy name, O Jehovah, endureth for- 
ever," thy memorial, O Jehovah, throughout all generations; " also 
Hosea 12: 5, " Jehovah is his memorial." The name is full of memories, 
and it seems a misfortune that the Jew does not permit himself to pro- 
nounce it, and even the Englishman has not fully used it in his Author- 
ized and Revised Versions. It would be better to retain the much- 



GOD, NAMES OF 213 

criticized pronunciation " Jehovah " than to lose it altogether. Mispro- 
nunciation is not confined to this word. We have grecized, latinized, 
and anglicized most of the proper names in the Bible. 

3. Adonai 

The third name or title of God is the word Adonai ("^"IN). In the 
singular form of Adon ('j*"!^ ), it is used of any lord or master. For 
example, it is applied to Joseph. Gen. 45: 9. It is used of God in a 
few passages; e. g., Joshua 3: 11, 13, where we read of "the Lord, or 
Master, of the whole earth." This passage is referred to with the same 
title in the singular in Psalms 97: 5, also in Micah 4: 13; see also 
Zechariah 4: 14 and 6: 5. In the plural form, though by no means 
applied only to God, it is frequently used of him, and is found in 
twenty-two books of the Old Testament. It gave a sense of rule or pos- 
sessorship, very much as our English word " Lord " does. It is occa- 
sionally found in composite proper names, as Adonizedek, and still more 
often in conjunction with other names of God, especially in prayers; 
e. g.. Genesis 15: 2. 

4. 'Elion and Shaddai 

The fourth name is 'Elion ( p^br), the Most High. It is used 
thirty-nine times, chiefly in the Psalms, but occurs as early as Genesis 
14: 18, 19, 29, in connection with Melchizedek, also in the vaticination of 
Balaam. Num. 24: 16. It reminds us that God is far above man, that 
he is the Most High, the Supreme Being. 

The name usually translated "the Almighty" is Shaddai ( ^ir ). 
Perhaps " the all-sufl&cient " would be a better translation. It marks the 
divine bounty, and is used with special force in the promises made to 
the patriarchs. It is freely used in Job, and rarely in Psalms, Isaiah, 
Ezekiel, and Joel. It occurs in Numbers 24: 4, 16, in the mouth of 
Balaam, and in Ruth 1: 20, 21, where Naomi the Moabitess uses it. 
Occasionally we find it in the composition of proper names, as in the 
name Zurishaddai, " the Almighty is my Rock." 

5. Other Titles of God 

There are certain combinations of names and some other titles or 
expressions of the attributes of God which have to be enumerated and 
shortly considered. 

When we bear in mind the first verse of the Bible, it seems natural 
that God should be called Creator, as in Isaiah frequently; but in one 
passage, strangely enough, the word is in the plural according to the 
Hebrew punctuation. Eccl. 12 : 1. This may be intended to emphasize 
the thought. Also he is called a Father to Israel, though the thought 
of Fatherhood is not often expressed. He is " the God of the spirits of 
all flesh" (Num. 16: 22; 27: 16), a title which reminds us that the 
immaterial element in human nature is more godlike than the material. 
He is " the Holy One of Israel " because his holiness is specially mani- 
fested in his dealings with his people. Again, he is described as the 
"Strength of Israel" (1 Sam. 15:29), where the word ( n55J ) might 
have been rendered " victory " or " perpetuity." Compare the expres- 
sion, "the Lord is my strength." Ex. 15: 2; Ps. 68: 35; 86: 1; 27: 1; 
46: 1. God is universally regarded in the Old Testament as the fountain 
of force and energy as well as the spring of life. Thus the conservation 
of energy is traced to its source. The Rock as a sign of stability and 
security is used six times of God in Deuteronomy 32, eleven times in 
the Psalms, and in twelve other places. 

The expression " the Mighty One " ( "i^-N ) is found chiefly in con- 
nection with the name Jacob or Israel. Gen. 49: 24; Isa. 1: 24; 49: 26; 
60: 16. Another word signifying "great" ( b^l^ ) is used in Deuteron- 



214 GOD, NAMES OP 

omy 7: 21, 23; and yet another ( 1*3,1 ) in Deuteronomy 10: 17, and other 
passages; while in Isaiah 63: 1 — "mighty to save" — the word ( D"i ) 
signifies abundance. The title " High One " ( DTl?0 ) is used both of God 
and of his dwelling place. Micah 6:6; Isa. 32: 15. 

A notable and rare expression is found thrice [twice] over in Genesis 
14, where God is called " the possessor of heaven and earth." The word 
(n^p) is generally used of purchase or acquisition, but it must have 
had a special sense in ancient days, and it gives a far-reaching view 
of ancient monotheism. 

God is also called a Redeemer, both as a deliverer (r>"iD) from 
bondage, and as a kinsman i^^i^^) who has the right of redemption. 
He is also a keeper ir\^tD ), a deliverer ( '>^^^ or ip\jj ), a quickener 
("^n), and a Saviour (J?2/^ ). This last word is applied to God in his 
dealings with Israel in 350 passages, the first being Deuteronomy 33: 29. 
One other notable expression should be mentioned, viz., " The Lord of 
hosts" ( niN'DiJ "1"^ ) . Sometimes this is applied to lordship over the 
stellar hosts, sometimes to the angelic armies, and sometimes to the 
hosts of Israel. It is rather curious that this title does not occur till 
Samuel's time. If the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges had been com- 
posed after Samuel's age, we should have found such a fitting title for 
God freely introduced. 

6. God Revealed in His Names 

Such are the primary materials for estimating Old Testament the- 
ology. The names of God suggest varied and sublime aspects of his 
Being. They appeal alike to our reason, our affection, and our con- 
science. The whole Hebrew Scriptures are thus steeped in theology of 
the truest and most practical kind. It is not that we have a bare repe- 
tition of words and phrases such as we meet with in Mohammedan 
writings, nor a series of esoteric and mystical formulae as in ancient 
Egyptian religion; but we have God in nature, God in history, and God 
in redemption, God inhabiting the spirit world and supreme over the 
stellar world, these two worlds being harmonious but distinct, as the 
human mind and the body are distinct. 

The names conserve the ideas; and the history illustrates them. Thus 
right thoughts of the Infinite were built up in the mind of the finite. 
Enough was revealed to encourage men to obey, but not enough to make 
them giddy with the conviction that they had found out all. God was 
revealed, yet he hid himself. " The secret things belong unto the Lord 
our God, but those which are revealed belong unto us and to our chil- 
dren forever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deut. 29: 29. 
— " Old Testament Theology and Modern Ideas,*' R. B. CHrdlestone, M. A., 
pp. 38-43. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909. 

If we may take a suggestion from Exodus 6: 3, it implies that dif- 
ferent names of God have each their distinct and proper signification; 
and this inherent signification of the terms must be taken into the ac- 
count if any successful attempt is to be made to explain their usage. The 
mechanical and superficial solution of two blended documents offered 
by the critics will not answer. Exodus 6: 3, instead of contradicting 
the book of Genesis, affords the key to the phenomena which it presents. 

The derivation and primary signification of Elohim are in dispute; 
according to some authorities the radical meaning is that of power, 
according to others it denotes one who is the object of fear and adora- 
tion. It is the general name for God, and is applied both to the true 
God and to pagan deities. Jehovah is not a common but a proper noun. 
It belongs to the true God alone, and is his characteristic name, by 
which he is distinguished from all others, and by which he made 



GOD, NAMES OF 215 

himself known to Israel his chosen people. Accordingly Jehovah 
denotes specifically what God is in and to Israel; Elohim, what he 
is to other nations as well. That universal agency which is exer- 
cised in the world at large, and which is directed upon Israel and 
Gentiles alike, is, by Elohim, the God of creation and of providence. 
That special manifestation of himself which is made to his own people 
is by Jehovah, the God of revelation and of redemption. The sacred 
writer uses one name or the other according as he contemplates God 
under one or the other point of view. Where others than those of the 
chosen race are the speakers, as Abimelech (Gen. 21: 22, 23) or Pharoah 
(41: 38, 39), it is natural that they should say Elohim, unless they 
specifically refer to the God of the patriarchs (Gen. 26: 28), or of 
Israel (Ex. 5:2), when they will say Jehovah. In transactions between 
Abraham or his descendants and those of another race, God may be 
spoken of under aspects common to them both, and the name Elohim 
be employed; or he may be regarded under aspects specifically Israel- 
itish, and the name Jehovah be used. Again, as Elohim is the generic 
name for God as distinguished from beings of a different grade, it Is 
the term proper to be used when God and man, the divine and the hu- 
man, are contrasted, as Genesis 30: 2; 32: 28; 45: 5, 7, 8; 50: 19, 20. 

Hengstenberg maintained that Elohim denotes a lower and Jehovah 
a higher stage of the knowledge and apprehension of God. The revela- 
tion of God advances from his disclosure as Elohim in the creation 
(Genesis 1) to his disclosure as Jehovah in his covenant with Israel at 
Sinai; and in the interval between these two extremes he may be 
designated by one name or the other, according to the conception which 
is before the mind of the writer at the time. In any manifestation sur- 
passing those which have preceded he may be called Jehovah; or If 
respect is had to more glorious manifestations that are to follow, he 
may be called Elohim. The names, according to this view, are relatively 
employed to indicate higher or lower grades of God's manifestation of 
himself. There seems to be a measure of truth in this representation 
of the matter, at least in its general outlines. The name Jehovah 
shines out conspicuously at three marked epochs, while in the inter- 
vals between them it is dimmed and but rarely appears. Jehovah is 
almost exclusively used in the account of our first parents, recording the 
initiating of God's kingdom on earth (Gen. 2:4 to 4: 16), in its con- 
trast with the material creation described in chapter 1; in the lives of 
Abraham and Isaac, recording the setting apart of one among the fam- 
ilies of mankind to found the chosen people of God in its contrast with 
the preceding universal degeneracy (Gen. 12 to 17: 1; 26); and God's 
revelation of himself to Moses as the deliverer and God of Israel, ful- 
filling the promises made to their fathers, in contrast with the ante- 
cedent period of waiting and foreign residence and oppression. From 
this time onward Jehovah is the dominant name, since the theocratic 
relation was then fully established.r— " The Higher Criticism of the 
Pentateuch," William Henry Green, D. D., LL. D., pp. 102-104. 'New 
York: Charles 8cril)ner's Sons, 1895. 

God, Names of. — ^Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures two chief 
names are used for the one true divine Being — Elohim, commonly 
translated " God " in our version, and Jehovah, translated " Lord." 
Elohim is the plural of Eloah (in Arabic, Allah); it is often used in the 
short form El (a word signifying strength), as in El-STiaddai, God 
Almighty, the name by which God was specially known to the patri- 
archs. Gen. 17: 1; 28: 3; Ex. 6: 3. The etymology is uncertain, but it 
is generally agreed that the primary idea is that of strength, power of 



216 GOD, NAMES OF 

effect, and that it properly describes God in that character in which he 
is exhibited to all men in his works, as the creator, sustainer, and su- 
preme governor of the world. 

The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The 
fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead 
hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what gram- 
marians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fulness of divine 
strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God. Jehovah denotes spe-- 
cifically the one true God, whose people the Jews were, and who made 
them the guardians of his truth. The name is never applied to a false 
god, nor to any other being except one, the Angel-Jehovah, who is 
thereby marked as one with God, and who appears again in the New 
Covenant as "God manifested in the flesh." Thus much is clear; but 
all else is beset with difficulties. 

At a time too early to be traced, the Jews abstained from pro- 
nouncing the name, for fear of its irreverent use. The custom is said 
to have been founded on a strained interpretation of Leviticus 24: 16; 
and the phrase there used, " The Name " (Shema), is substituted by the 
rabbis for the unutterable word. In reading the Scriptures they sub- 
stituted for it the word Adonai (Lord), from the translation of which 
by Kvpioi [kurios] in the Septuagint, followed by the Vulgate, which 
uses Dominus, we have the Lord of our version. The substitution 
of the word " Lord " is most unhappy, for it in no way represents the 
meaning of the sacred name. The key to the meaning of the name is 
unquestionably given in God's revelation of himself to Moses by the 
phrase " I AM THAT I AM." Ex. 3 : 14 ; 6:3. We must connect the 
name " Jehovah " with the Hebrew substantive verb to be, with the 
inference that it expresses the essential, eternal, unchangeable "being of 
Jehovah. But more, it is not the expression only, or chiefly, of an 
absolute truth; it is a practical revelation of God, in his essential, 
unchangeable relation to his chosen people, the basis of his covenant. — 
*'A Dictionary of the Bihle'' William Smith, LL. D., p. ^^0, Teacher's 
edition, Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, copyright 1884. 

While Elohim exhibits God displayed in his power as the creator 
and governor of the physical universe, the name Jehovah designates his 
nature as he stands in relation to man, as the only almighty, true, 
personal, holy Being, a spirit and "the Father of spirits" (Num. 
16: 22; comp. John 4: 24), who revealed himself to his people, made 
a covenant with them, and became their lawgiver, and to whom all 
honor and worship are due. — Id., p. 284. 

God, Names of, Elohim. — ^This is the name, and the only name, 
by which God is set before us in the first chapter of the book of 
Genesis. Here we find it repeated in almost every verse. Under this 
name we see God, according to his own will, working on a dark and 
ruined creature, till by his word all is set in order and made "very 
good." This is the name which we need to know before all others. 
This, therefore, is the first revealed in Holy Scripture; for it shows us 
one, who, when all is lost in darkness and confusion, brings back, first 
his light and life, and then his image, into the creature, and so makes 
all things new and very good. 

Now there are certain peculiarities connected with this name, 
which must be considered, if we would understand even in measure all 
that is divinely taught under it. 

This name, then (in Hebrew, ''Elohim'' or " Alehim''), is a plural 
noun, which, though first and primarily used in Holy Scripture to de- 
scribe the one true God, our Creator and Redeemer, is used also in a lower 
sense in r^f^rence to the "gods jnany and lords many" whom the 



Oreece, Alexander 2i7 

ancient heathen feared and worshiped. Let us first look at the primary 
use of this name, in which we learn its highest significance. We shall 
then better understand how it could be applied to the gods of the 
heathen or to the idols which represented them. 

First, then, this name, though a plural noun, when used of the one 
true God is constantly joined with verbs and adjectives in the singular. 
We are thus prepared, even from the beginning, for the mystery of a 
plurality in God, who, though he says, " There is no God beside me," 
and, " I am God, and there is none else," says also, " Let us make man in 
our image, after our likeness;" and again, "The man is become like 
one of us; " and again at Babel, "Go to, let us go down and confound 
their language;" and again, in the vision granted to the prophet Isaiah, 
" Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? " And this same mystery, 
though hidden from an English reader, comes out again and again in 
many other texts of Holy Scripture. For, " Remember thy Creator in 
the days of thy youth," is literally, " Remember thy Creators." Again, 
" None saith, Where is God my Maker? " is in the Hebrew, " God my 
Makers." So again, " Let Israel rejoice in him that made him," is, in 
the Hebrew, " in his Makers." And so again in the Proverbs, " The 
knowledge of the Holy Ones is understanding." So again where the 
prophet says, " Thy Maker is thy husband," both words are plural in 
the Hebrew. Many other passages of Scripture have precisely the same 
peculiarity. Therefore in heaven " cherubim and seraphim continually 
do cry. Holy, holy, holy. Lord of hosts," while on earth, taught by the 
Spirit of our Lord, we say, " Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." The plural 
form of the first name of God, that is " Elohim,'' shadows forth the same 
mystery; while the verb, and even the adjective, joined with it in the 
singular, as when we read, " the living," or " the righteous," or " the 
most high God," show that this " Elohim" though plural, is but one 
God. — " The Names of God in Holy Scripture," Andrew Jukes, pp. 15-17. 
London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1892. 

Greece, Alexander Fulfilling Prophecy. — Alexander collected his 
army at Pella to cross the Hellespont, that he might exact the vengeance 
of Greece on Persia for indignities suffered at the hands of Xerxes, 
who " by his strength through his riches " had stirred up " all against 
the realm of Grecia." Dan. 11: 2, A. V. . . . It may be noted how 
exactly the point of Alexander's invasion is indicated in Daniel's proph- 
ecy. Dan. 8: 5. From Troy he advanced southward, and encoun- 
tered the Persian forces at the Granicus. While in the conflict, Alexan- 
der exhibited all the reckless bravery of a Homeric hero. He at the 
same time showed the skill of a consummate general. The Persian 
army was dispersed with great slaughter. Before proceeding farther 
into Persia, by rapid marches and vigorously pressed sieges, he com- 
pleted the conquest of Asia Minor. Here, too, he showed his knowledge 
of the sensitiveness of Asiatic peoples to omens, by visiting Gordium 
and cutting the knot on which, according to legend, depended the 
empire of Asia. 

What he had done in symbol he had to make a reality; he had to 
settle the question of supremacy in Asia by the sword. He learned that 
Darius had collected an immense army and was coming to meet him. 
Although the Persian host was estimated at a half-million men, Alex- 
ander hastened to encounter it. Rapidity of motion, as symbolized in 
Daniel by the " he-goat " that " came from the .west . . . and touched 
not the ground" (Dan. 8:5), was Alexander's great characteristic. 
The two armies met in the relatively narrow plain of Issus, where the 
Persians lost, to a great extent, the advantage of their numbers; they 



218 GREEK CHURCH 

were defeated with tremendous slaughter, Darius himself setting the 
example of flight. — The International Standard Bihle Encyclopedia, 
edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. ''Alexander, the Great," 
p. 92. 

Greek Church, Separation of, from Rome. — It [the separation 
between the Greek and the Roman Churches] is due chiefly to three 
causes. The flrst cause is the politico-ecclesiastical rivalry of the Pa- 
triarch of Constantinople backed by the Byzantine Empire, and the 
Bishop of Rome in connection with the new German Empire. The 
second cause is the growing centralization and overbearing conduct of 
the Latin Church in and through the Papacy. The third cause is the 
stationary character of the Greek and the progressive character of the 
Latin Church during the Middle Ages. [p. 311] ... 

The first serious outbreak of this conflict took place after the middle 
of the ninth century, when Photius and Nicolas, two of the ablest rep- 
resentatives of the rival churches, came into collision. Photius is one 
of the greatest of patriarchs, as Nicolas is one of the greatest of popes. 
The former was superior in learning, the latter in statesmanship; 
while in moral integrity, official pride, and obstinacy both were fairly 
matched, except tjiat the papal ambition towered above the patriarchal 
dignity. Photius would tolerate no superior, Nicolas no equal; the 
one stood on the Council of Chalcedon, the other on Pseudo-Isidor. 

The contest between them was at first personal. The deposition of 
Ignatius as Patriarch of Constantinople, for rebuking the immorality 
of Caesar Bardas, and the election of Photius, then a mere layman, in 
his place (858), were arbitrary and uncanonical acts which created a 
temporary schism in the East, and prepared the way for a permanent 
schism between the East and the West, Nicolas, being appealed to as 
mediator by both parties (first by Photius), assumed the haughty air 
of supreme judge on the basis of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, but 
was at first deceived by his own legates. The controversy was compli- 
cated by the Bulgarian quarrel. King Bogoris had been converted to 
Christianity by missionaries from Constantinople (861), but soon after 
applied to Rome for teachers, and the Pope eagerly seized this oppor- 
tunity to extend his jurisdiction (866). 

Nicolas, in a Roman synod (863), decided in favor of the innocent 
Ignatius, and pronounced sentence of deposition against Photius with 
a threat of excommunication in case of disobedience. Photius, en- 
raged by this conduct and the Bulgarian interference, held a counter- 
synod, and deposed in turn the successor of St. Peter (867). In his 
famous encyclical letter of invitation to the Eastern patriarchs, he 
charged the whole Western Church with heresy and schism for inter- 
fering with the jurisdiction over the Bulgarians, for fasting on Satur- 
day, for abridging the time of Lent by a week, for taking milk-food 
(milk, cheese, and butter) during the quadragesimal fast, for enforcing 
clerical celibacy, and despising priests who lived in virtuous matrimony, 
and, most of all, for corrupting the Nicene Creed by the insertion of 
the Filioque, and thereby introducing two principles into the Holy 
Trinity. 

This letter clearly indicates all the doctrinal and ritual differences 
which caused and perpetuated the schism to this day. The subsequent 
history is only a renewal of the same charges aggravated by the mis- 
fortunes of the Greek Church, and the arrogance and intolerance of old 
Rome. [pp. 312-314] — " History of the Christian Church," Philip Schaft, 
(7 vol. ed.) Yol. lY, pp. 311-314. New York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 
1893. 



GREEK CHURCH 219 

Greek Church, Date of Final Separation of. — Leo [IX, 1049-1055] 
sent an embassy to Constantinople, at the head of which stood the 
masterful and passionate Cardinal Humbert. Leo's letters censured the 
assumption of Michael Caerularius, in calling himself the ecumenical 
patriarch, and desiring thereby to -subordinate to himself the Eastern 
patriarchs; so also his procedure against the Roman custom in the 
Supper. Plainly under the pressure of the imperial wish, Nicetas Pec- 
toratus, a monk of the monastery of Studion, agreed to repudiate his 
treatise against the Latins in the presence of the court and the Roman 
ambassadors, and the emperor caused it to be burned. But Michael 
Caerularius [Patriarch of Constantinople] proved unapproachable, and 
broke off all intercourse with the Roman legates. They then deposited 
a bull of excommunication against him on the altar of St. Sophia, on the 
16th July, 1054, in which he was accused of all possible heresies, and 
every one who received the Supper from a Greek who blamed the 
Roman sacrifice was threatened with the ban. Once more the emperor 
induced the already departed legates to return; but the populace took 
the side of their Patriarch, the legates were obliged to take flight, and 
were placed under the ban by Michael at a synod, which the Oriental 
patriarchs also approved. The popular disposition, which was fostered 
by the Greek clergy, annulled the plans of the emperor. Although the 
council represented the matter as though Humbert and his companions 
were not really legates of the Bishop of Rome, as a matter of fact the 
decisive and momentous schism was thus completed. — " History of the 
Christian Church in the Middle Ages," Dr. Wilhelm Moeller, p. 230, 
2d edition, translated by Andrew Butherfurd, B. D. New York: The 
Macmillan Company, 1910. 

Greek Catholic Church, Name and Creed or. — Various names are 
used to designate the great division of Christendom which is considered 
in this article. The full oflacial title is " The Holy Orthodox Catholic 
Apostolic Eastern Church " ( 7? ayla dpdddo^os /ca^oXt/cr/ airoaToKiKT) dvaroXiKT] 

iKK\r](ria [he hagia orthodoxos katholike apostoUke anatolike ek- 
kldsia} ) , The Roman Church claims all these titles, except " Ori- 
ental," for which it substitutes " Roman," and claims them exclusively. 
The name "Eastern (or Oriental) Church" designates its origin and 
geographical territory. The " Orthodox Church " expresses its close ad- 
herence to the ecumenical system of doctrine and discipline as settled 
by the seven ecumenical councils before the separation from the Western 
or Latin Church. On this title the chief stress is laid, and it is cele- 
brated on a special day called " Orthodoxy Sunday," in the beginning of 
Lent, when a dramatic representation of the old ecumenical councils 
is given in the churches, and anathemas are pronounced on all heresies. 
The common designation " Greek Church " is not strictly correct, but 
indicates the national origin of the church and the language in which 
most of its creeds, liturgies, canons, and theological and ascetic litera- 
ture are composed, and its worship mainly conducted, [p. 48] . . . 

The Eastern Church holds fast to the decrees and canons of the 
seven ecumenical councils. Its proper creed is that adopted at Nicaea 
in 325, enlarged at Constantinople 381, and indorsed at Chalcedon 451, 
without the Latin fllioque. This creed is the basis of all Greek cate- 
chisms and systems of theology, and a regular part of worship. The 
Greeks have never acknowledged in form the Apostles' Creed, which is 
of Western origin, nor the Athanasian Creed, which teaches the double 
procession, and is likewise of Western origin. Besides this ecumeni- 
cal creed, the Eastern Church acknowledges three subordinate con- 
fessions, which define her position against Romanism and Protestant- 
ism; namely, (1) The "Orthodox Confession" of Petrus Mogilas, metro- 



220 GREEK CHURCH 

politan of Kief (1643), a catechetical exposition of the Nicene Creed, 
the Lord's Prayer and the beatitudes, and the decalogue; (2) the "Con- 
fession of Dositheos or Eighteen Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem " 
(1672); and (3) the " Lronger Catechism" of Philaret, metropolitan of 
Moscow, adopted by the Holy Synod of St. Petersburg in 1839 and pub- 
lished in all the languages of Russia, [p. 50] — The New Schaff-Herzog 
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IV, art. " Eastern Church," 
pp. 48-50. 

Greek Church, Creed of. — Neither before nor after the Great 
Schism has the Greek or " Holy Oriental Orthodox Catholic Apostolic " 
Church found it necessary or desirable to draw up a new creed. It 
recognizes still, as its ultimate standards, the original Niceno-Constan- 
tinopolitan Creed with the addition of Chalcedon, assigning to the 
Apostolicum and the Quicunque (of course without the words "and 
from the Son") no higher status than that of devotional and private 
utility. It adheres faithfully to the "Exposition of the Orthodox 
Faith " in which John of Damascus harmonized the theological work of 
the Greek Fathers and councils of the first seven centuries (c. a. d. 
750). "While proud of the doctrinal immutability thus evidenced, it has 
not, however, altogether eluded the necessity of producing or adopting 
or condemning particular confessions and catechisms, and in some 
sense defining its relation to modern movements of thought both in the 
Protestant and in the Roman Catholic world. — "A History of Greeds and 
Confessions of Faith," William A. Curtis, B. D., D. Litt., pp. 90, 91. 
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912. 

Greek Church and Roman Compaked. — No two churches are so 
much alike in their creed, polity, and cultus, as the Greek and Roman; 
and yet no two are such irreconcilable rivals, perhaps for the very 
reason of their affinity. They agree much more than either agrees with 
any Protestant church. They were never organically united. They 
differed from the beginning in nationality, language, and genius, as the 
ancient Greeks differed from the Romans; yet they grew up together, 
and stood shoulder to shoulder in the ancient conflict with paganism 
and heresy. They co-operated in the early ecumenical councils, and 
adopted their doctrinal and ritual decisions. But the removal of the 
seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople by Diocletian and Con- 
stantine, the development of the papal monarchy in the West, and the 
establishment of a Western empire in connection with it, laid the foun- 
dation of a schism which has never been healed. The controversy cul- 
minated in the rivalry between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the 
Pope of Rome. — The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, Vol. IV, art. ''Eastern Church," p. 49. 

Greek Church, Efforts for Union with the Latin Church. — 
Deep-rooted as was the antipathy of the Greeks against the Latins, still 
the continual approach of destruction with the advance of the Turks 
compelled the Grecian emperor, John "VII, Palseologus, from the year 
1430, to try again every means to win assistance from the Latins by 
means of a union of the churches. The differences between the Pope 
and the Synod of Basle delayed the arrangement. The emperor at 
length threw himself into the arms of the Pope, and in 1438 came in 
person with a great body of bishops into Italy. At the synod, which was 
opened at Ferrara, J>ut moved in February, 1439, to Florence, for a 
long time all seemed likely to be lost in an endless controversy; but ne- 
cessity made the Greeks yielding, and on the 6th July, 1439, they signed 
the form of union prescribed by the Pope. On the other hand, they 



HAMMURABI, CODE OF 221 

now brought back with them disunion into their fatherland: the gen- 
eral indignation caused many of the bishops to revoke their subscrip- 
tion. The great majority of the Greeks who were already living under 
the Turkish dominion, pronounced decisively against any Latinization. 
The ill-fated emperor sought so far as he could to maintain the union 
inviolate, in the vain hope of supporting thereby his tottering throne. 
But it served rather to hasten than to ward off the inbreak of destruc- 
tion. 

After the Act of Union with the Greeks there followed at Florence 
the empty show of a renewed union with the Armenians (1440), the 
inefRcacy of which it was easy to foresee. Then appeared at the Coun- 
cil, which in 1442 was removed to the Lateran, a succession of ambassa- 
dors from all the other Oriental churches, in order to obtain for them 
reconciliation with the Church of Rome by a papal decree. This frivo- 
lous scene was evidently intended to win back the public opinion of 
the Western world to the Pope, by the appearance of a general union 
of all Christendom under the papal obedience, and to overawe and bring 
to submission the steadfast adherents of the Council of Basle. — ■ "A Com- 
pendium of Ecclesiastical History," Dr. John G. L. Gieseler, Vol. V, pp. 
205-S09. Edinburgh: T. d T. Clark, 1855. 

Hammurabi. — Hammurabi was sixth king of the first dynasty of 
Babylon. The name is taken as a compound of Ammu and rabi, " (the 
god) Ammu is great." In the Assyrian period the name was not un- 
derstood and was mistranslated Eimta-rapastum, " great of family " 
or " the family is noble." This fact is a strong re-enforcement of the 
argument for the foreign origin of the dynasty. By Assyriologlsts 
Hammurabi is quite generally identified with the Amraphel of Genesis 
14, though the final syllable of the latter word is hard to account for 
on philological grounds, and some scholars dispute the identification. — 
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Yol. Y, 
art. " Hammuradi and His Code," p. 135. 

Hammiirabi, Code of. — At the end of the year 1901 an important 
discovery was made among the ruins of Susa — " Shushan the palace," 
as it is called in the book of Daniel. There M. de Morgan's excava- 
tions brought to light the three fragments of an enormous block of 
polished black marble, thickly covered with cuneiform characters. 
The characters were engraved with the highest artistic skill, and at 
the top of the monument was a low relief representing the Babylonian 
king Khammu-rabi, or Amraphel, receiving the laws of his kingdom 
from the sun god before whom he stands. When the characters had 
been copied and read, it was found that they embodied a complete 
code of laws — the earliest code yet discovered, earlier than that of 
Moses by eight hundred years, and the foundation of the laws promul- 
gated and obeyed throughout Western Asia. [p. 67] . . . 

That Babylonian law should have been already codified in the age 
of Abraham deprives the " critical " theory, which makes the Mosaic 
law posterior to the prophets, of one of its two main supports. The 
theory was based on two denials, — that writing was used for literary 
purposes in the time of Moses, and that a legal code was possible be- 
fore the period of the Jewish kings. The discovery of the Tel el- 
Amarna tablets disproved the first assumption; the discovery of the 
code of Khammu-rabi has disproved the second, [pp. 69, 70] . . . 

Certain German Assyriologlsts have been at great pains to discover 
similarities between the codes of Khammu-rabi and Moses, and to infer 
from this a connection between them. And there are cases in which 
the similarity is striking. The free man, for example, who had beeu 



222 HAMMURABI, CODE OF 

enslaved for debt, was to be manumitted after three years according 
to the code of Khammu-rabi, after seven years according to that of 
Moses. Kidnapping, again, was punished in both codes by death, and 
there are some curious resemblances in the laws relating to death from 
the goring of an ox. If the owner of the ox could be proved to have 
been negligent or otherwise responsible for the accident, the Baby- 
lonian law enacted that he should be fined half a maneh of silver, or 
one third of a maneh if the dead man were a slave; in Israel the penalty 
of death was exacted in the first case, and a fine of half a maneh in the 
second. Where, however, the owner was not in fault, he went un- 
punished in both codes, though the Mosaic code required that the ox 
should be put to death. 

The difference between the two codes in this last particular is 
characteristic of a difference which runs through the whole of them, 
and makes the contrast between them far greater and more striking 
than any agreement that can be pointed out. The code of Khammu-rabi 
presupposes a settled state, a kingdom, in short, in which law is supreme 
and the individual is forbidden to take it into his own hands. The code 
of Moses, on the other hand, is addressed to a more backward com- 
munity, which has not yet become a state, but is still in the condition 
of a tribal confederacy, [pp. 71, 72] — " Monument Facts and Higher 
Critical Fancies" A. H. Bayce, LL. D., D. D., pp. 67-72. New York: 
Fleming H. Rev ell Company. 

Hammurabi, Code of, Compared with Pentateuchal Laws. — lA 
comparison of the code of Hammurapi as a whole with the Pentateuchal 
laws as a whole, while it reveals certain similarities, convinces the stu- 
dent that the laws of the Old Testament are in no essential way de- 
pendent upon the Babylonian laws. Such resemblances as there are 
arose, it seems clear, from a similarity of antecedents and of general 
intellectual outlook; the striking differences show that there was no 
direct borrowing. The primitive Semitic custom of an eye for an eye 
and a tooth for a tooth (Ex. 21: 24; Lev. 24: 20; Deut. 19: 21) is made 
the basis of many penalties in the Babylonian code. . . . These similarities 
only show that Babylonia had a large Semitic element in its population. 
Again, Hammurapi pictured himself at the top of the pillar on which 
these laws are written as receiving them from the sun god. The Bible 
tells us that Moses received the laws of the Pentateuch from Jehovah. 
The whole attitude of the two documents is, however, different. Ham- 
murapi, in spite of the picture, takes credit, both in the prologue and 
in the epilogue of his code, for the laws. He, not Shamash, established 
justice in the land. Moses, on the other hand, was only the instrument; 
the legislation stands as that of Jehovah himself. 

This difference appears also in the contents of the two codes. The 
Pentateuch contains many ritual regulations and purely religious laws, 
while the code of Hammurapi is purely civil. As has been already 
pointed out, the code of Hammurapi is adapted to the land of the 
rivers, and to a highly civilized commercial people; while the Biblical 
laws are intended for a dry land like Palestine, and for an agricultural 
community that was at a far less advanced stage of commercial and 
social development. 

Religion is, however, not a matter of social advancement only. In 
all that pertains to religious insight the Pentateuch is far in advance 
of Hammurapi's laws. — "Archwology and the Bihle'' George A. Barton, 
Ph. D., LL. D., pp. 340, 341. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School 
Union, copyright 1916, 

Hammurabi, Code of, and Higher Criticism. — He [Hammurabi] 
is supposed to be identical with the Amraphel, king of Shinar, men- 



HAMMURABI, COBB OF 223 

tioned in Genesis 14. The twenty-eight columns of text [of his code] 
contain a very remarkable series of laws, and the fact that such a wise 
code should have existed in the time of Abraham has been urged as 
a proof that the Mosaic lajsv was not a revelation from God, but a copy 
from Babylon. As we have already noticed, there is clear evidence 
from God's words concerning Abraham, that he had already given a 
" charge," " commandments," " statutes," and " laws." How God gave 
these laws we do not know. . . . 

Khammurabi's code seems to explain several of the customs of the 
patriarchs, such as Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham, Rachel giving 
Bilhah to Jacob, because they were childless. A provision covering this 
is in the code. There are also laws concerning the. adoption of a slave, 
thus making him a freeman and the heir of his adopted father, remind- 
ing us of Abraham's reference to Eliezer. There are many laws against 
theft of any kind, a death penalty being attached to robbery from the 
palace. This reminds us of the supposed theft of Joseph's cup, and 
explains the fear of his brethren. The customs represented in Genesis 
24, where Abraham seeks a wife for his son, the giving of gifts, etc., 
are all in keeping with the code. Another law illustrates the adoption 
of Ephraim and Manasseh by their grandfather Jacob. 

Before this code of Khammurabi was found, the critics had been 
saying that the book of Deuteronomy was written in the days of Josiah, 
and the other books of Moses subsequently. " This discovery under- 
mined the very foundations of ' the critical hypothesis.' But instead of 
repenting of their error and folly, the critics turned round, and with 
amazing effrontery declared that the Mosaic code was borrowed from 
Babylon. This is a most reasonable conclusion on the part of those 
who regard the Mosaic law as a purely human code. But here the 
critic is ' hoist with his own petard.' For if the Mosaic law were based 
on the Hammurabi code, it could not have been framed in the days of 
Josiah, long ages after Hammurabi had been forgotten. This Hammu- 
rabi discovery is one of many that led Professor Sayce to declare that 
' the answer of archeology to the theories of modern " criticism " is 
complete; the law preceded the prophets, and did not follow them.' 
But even this is not all. It is a canon of * criticism ' with these men 
that no Biblical statement is ever to be accepted unless confirmed by 
some pagan authority; Genesis 14 was therefore dismissed as fable on 
account of its naming Amraphel as a king of Babylon. But Amraphel 
is only another form of the name of Hammurabi, who now stands out 
as one of the great historical characters of the past." — " The Bible 
and the British Museum," Ada R. Habershon, pp. 57-59. London: Mor- 
gan and Scott, 1909. 

Herod, Time of Death of. — ^ Herod was made king of Palestine 
by a decree of the senate, Goss. Cn. Domitio Calvino, G. Asinio Pollione 
(Josephus, Ant., xiv, 14, 5), i. e., u. c. 714, b. c. 40. But he did not obtain 
quiet possession till three years later, when, aided by the Roman legions, 
he wrested the actual sovereignty from the hands of Antigonus, Goss. 
Agrippa, Ganinio Gallo, i. e., u. c. 717, b. c. 37 (Josephus, A^it, xiv, 16, 
4). In that year, namely, on the day of the Fast (10 Tisri = 4 October), 
he took Jerusalem by siege. This then is the actual epoch of the reign 
of Herod. 

But it is the almost invariable practice of Jewish writers to date 
the years of their kings from the first (Jewish) day or 1 Nisan of the 
year in which the actual epoch occurred. Therefore the years of Herod 
bear date from 1 Nisan b. c. 37. 

Now Josephus (Ant., xvii, 8, 1) states that Herod reigned thirty- 
seven years from the date of his appointment by the decree of the sen- 



224 JIEROD, DEATH OF 

ate, and thirty-four years from the death of Antigonus. If the years 
were complete, they would end 4th October, b. c. 3; if current, then the 
statement is. satisfied by any date between 1 Nisan b. c. 4 and.l Nisan 
B. c. 3. For, since the first year of Herod bears date from 1 Nisan b. c. 
37, therefore his thirty-fourth from 1 Nisan b. c. 4. Thus far, then, the 
year is open to doubt. And it is much to be regretted that Josephus 
nowhere defines the year of Herod's death by the names of the consuls. 
It also unfortunately happens that this portion of Dion Cassius (in 
whose writings we possess the only connected history of the term of 
six or seven years during which the Nativity must have occurred) has 
come down to us in a mutilated state. For there is no reason to doubt 
that this historian related the death of Herod and the partition of his 
kingdom under its proper year. Still a careful combination of notes 
of time which Josephus has preserved will enable us to determine the 
necessary date with great precision. 

For the death year of Herod is defined by the mention, in Josephus, 
of an eclipse of the moon (Ant., xvii, 6, 4, fin.J. By calculation, it is cer- 
tain that this eclipse occurred in the night between the 12th and 13th 
March b. c. 4; for in the year b. c. 4 no other eclipse was visible at 
Jerusalem, and in the year b. c. 3 no eclipse at all was visible. This 
eclipse, then, as falling necessarily at the full of the moon, preceded the 
Passover of b. c. 4 by just one lunation. 

But it is further evident from Josephus that the death of Herod 
occurred just before a Passover. This must have been the Passover either 
of b. c. 4 or of b. c. 3. On the one supposition, the eclipse preceded the 
Passover in question by a period of one lunar month, on the other by a 
period of thirteen months. In order to settle this point, we must 
attentively consider the course of events related by Josephus. 

The eclipse took place in the very night after Herod's execution of 
certain sophists or zealots, who had thrown down a golden eagle which 
he had placed over the eastern gate of the temple (Ant., xvii, 6, 4, flrL). 
From that time Herod's disease increased in violence. Seeking relief, 
he crossed the Jordan, on a visit to the hot springs of Callirrhoe, where, 
as a last resource, his physicians ordered him to be bathed in hot oil. 
The experiment had nearly proved fatal, and from that time Herod 
despaired of life. He immediately returned to Jericho. There he 
received, by the return of his ambassadors whom he had sent to Rome, 
the imperial rescript which authorized him to put his son Antipater to 
death. "For a short space," says Josephus, " he revived; but very soon 
he relapsed, and, weary of his life, attempted to lay violent hands upon 
himself. Antipater, in his prison, hearing the shriek which was raised 
upon this alarm, and hoping that it betokened his father's death, en- 
deavored to bribe the gaoler to set him at liberty. The gaoler went 
straightway to Herod with information of Antipater's design, and the 
tyrant, in consequence, gave peremptory orders, on the spot, for the ex- 
ecution of his son. This was done: and on the fifth day after the 
execution Herod breathed his last" (Ant., xvii, 6, 5-7, 1; Bel. Jud.,. 
1, fin.). 

Immediately after the funeral and the seven days' mourning, Arche- 
laus, who by his father's last will, made within five days of his death,, 
was nominated king of Judea, went up to Jerusalem (Ant., u. s. §4; Bet^ 
Jud., ii, 1, 1), and just then, at the conclusion of the public mourning 
(Bel. Jud., ii, 2, 3) was the Passover. All this while, Archelaus was in 
urgent haste to go to Rome, to obtain the ratification of his father's last 
will, on which errand he set sail immediately after the festival. FVom 
these details it follows incontestably that the death of Herod preceded 
the Passover by not more than seven or eight days. . . . 



HEROD, DEATH OP 225 

Archelaus was deposed and banished in the year u. c. 759. Goss. 
Aem. Lepido, L. Arruntio (Dion Cass., LV). But Archelaus had reigned 
full nine years. This becomes evident on comparing Josephus, Ant., xvii, 
13, 3, with Bel. Jud., ii, 7, 3, where, relating this event, he mentions a 
remarkable dream of Archelaus, which a certain Essene had expounded 
as denoting the term of years during which he should reign; namely, in 
his dream, Archelaus saw nine ears of corn, which were devoured by 
oxen. This is the account in the "Wars;" but in the "Antiquities" 
(written after the "Wars") the number of ears of corn and years of 
government is given as ten. The two accounts are easily reconciled on 
the supposition that the reign of Archelaus lasted nine years complete, 
and had reached its tenth when he was deposed. A term of nine years 
reckoned from any date of u. c/ 759 leads up to the same date of u. c. 
750, B. c. 4. Whereas, if the death of Herod occurred about the Passover 
of B. c. 3, u. c. 751, nine years of Archelaus were not complete till 
u. c. 760, and consequently the variation above noticed could not 
have taken place. 

Again: Herod Philip, Josephus expressly says (Bel. Jud., xviii, 4, 
6), died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, i. e., between August a. d. 33 
and August a. d. 34, having ruled thirty-seven years. But a term of 
thirty-seven years complete, from any date between these extremes, 
leads to the same date between August b. c. 5 and August b. c. 4, The 
reign of Philip, by our hypothesis, began 1 Nisan b. c. 4; therefore its 
thirty-seventh year was complete 1 Nisan a. d. 34. In other words, the 
thirty-seventh year of Philip included about five months of the nine- 
teenth, and seven months of the twentieth, of Tiberius. This note of 
time, therefore, is perfectly consistent with the former. 

Lastly: Herod Antipas was deposed and banished after the return of 
Herod Agrippa to Palestine as king of Judea, which latter event took 
place in the second year of Caius, i. e., after March a. d. 38. When 
Agrippa was established in his kingdom, Herodias excited her husband, 
H. Antipas, against him, and at last persuaded him to undertake a 
voyage to Rome, the issue of which was his banishment. But we learn 
from Philo the very time of the year at which H. Agrippa arrived in 
Judea as king, namely, it was about the time of the Etesian winds, i. e., 
July or August. Hence the voyage of H. Antipas to Rome cannot be 
placed earlier than a. d. 39. And as Herod found Caius at Baiae, where 
he was to be found in that year no later than August, it follows that the 
deposal of Herod cannot be placed earlier than the summer of a. d. 39, 
and certainly it cannot be placed later. 

Now there are in existence three coins of Herod Antipas, with the 
numeral MP intimating that they were struck in the forty-third year of 
his tetrarchate, and this is the latest date noted on any of his coins. If 
his tetrarchate bears date, as we maintain, from 1 Nisan b. c. 4, its 
forty-third year began 1 Nisan a. d. 39: but if from 1 Nisan b. c. 3, 
then not till 1 Nisan a. d. 40, half a year after his banishment. 

It seems to me that the death of Herod is hereby fixed incontestably 
to the date which I have assigned above, namely, a few days before the 
Passover of b. c. 4. — " Chronology of the Holy Scriptures," Henry 
Browne, M. A., pp. 36-31. London: John W. Parker, 1844. 

Herodians, A Political Party. — ^Herodians: a party twice men- 
tioned in the Gospels (Matt. 22: 16; Mark 12: 13; 3:6) as acting with 
the Pharisees in opposition to Jesus. They were not a religious sect, but, 
as the name implies, a court or political party, supporters of the dynasty 
of Herod. Nothing is known of them beyond what the Gospels state. — 
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, 
M. A., D. D., Vol. Ill, art. ''Herodians," p. 1383. 

15 



226 



HEROD, GENEALOGY OF 






< 

CM 
O 

w 
U 



•i-H 

a 



0) 



TS 


|i^ 


• i-H 


^ 




«>1 


s 


« 




^ 



T3 






CO 

Q 05 CO 



tn SHJ 



S tH T^ Tfl 
H CO T-i tH 






!» 


C<1 






;:3 


(M 






^ 








1-1 


(M 






w 








W 


+J 
















rr 


^ 




1— 1 


M 


c3 as 


^ 


o 


^ 


rH 


(^ 


P4 


• •- 


CO 


M 




CO 


4sj 


^ 




■"^ 


13 


9 




iH 


hJ 



-»J tr- 
ee rH 



P 

P 

02 

M 




< 


CO 


dliH 


M 




M 


(TQ 


O 


T— 1 


<!5 


r/3 




<I1 


W 


^ ' 


ffi 








so 

a. 

5>i 



o 
O 

St 

o 
o 






M ■^-J 









as 



- Ph 

M 



la 


•<s> 


Oi 


op 


ta 




■*•> 


|j 


o 


o 



ta u 

Q^rG M 2 .. 



o 
O 

E>. 



ffi 



HEROD, FAMILY OF 



227 



Herod, Family of. — 

Antipas or Antipatek, an Idumsean, 
appointed prefect of Judea and Syria by Julius Caesar 



_^ 



r ^ 

Herod the Great, king of Judea,=iMariamne 

(Matt. 2: 1; Luke 1: 5) 

of whose offspring the following are to be noticed 



Aristobulus, 

strangled by 

order of 

his father 



Archelaus 
(Matt. 2: 22) 



Philip 
(Luke 3: 1) 



Herod, 
king of Chalcis 



Herod Agrippa, 
the elder 
(Acts 12) 



Herod Antipas 
(Luke 3:1; 
Matt. 14: 3; 
Mark 6: 14; 
Luke 3:19,20; 
23:11) 



Herodias, 
married to Herod Philip 
(Matt. 14: 3; 
Mark 6: 17; 
Luke 3: 19) 



Bernice 
(Acts 25: 13) 



Agrippa, junior 

(Acts 25:13; 26:1, 

et seq.) 



Drusilla 
(Acts 24: 14) 



Herod, misnamed the Great, by his will divided his dominions 
among his three sons, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Herod Philip. 

To Archelaus he assigned Judea, Samaria, and Idumsea, with the 
regal dignity, subject to the approbation of Augustus, who ratified his 
will as it respected the territorial division, but conferred on Archelaus 
the title of Ethnarch, or €hief of the nation, with a promise of the regal 
dignity, if he should prove himself worthy of it. Archelaus entered 
upon his new office amid the loud acclamations of his subjects, who 
considered him as a king; hence the evangelist, in conformity with the 
Jewish idiom, says that he reigned. Matt. 2: 22. [p, 109] ... 

Herod Antipas (or Antipater), another of Herod's sons, received 
from his father the district of Galilee and Peraea, with the title of 
Tetrarch. He is described by Josephus as a crafty and incestuous 
prince, with which character the narratives of the evangelists coincide; 
for, having deserted his wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, he 
forcibly took away and married Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod 
Philip, a proud and cruel woman, to gratify whom he caused John the 
Baptist to be beheaded, [p. 110] . . . 

Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis, Gaulonitis, and Batanaea, is men- 
tioned but once in the New Testament. Luke 3: 1. He is represented 
by Josephus as an amiable prince, beloved by his subjects, whom he 
governed with mildness and equity: on his decease without issue, after 



228 HIGHER CRITICISM 

a reign of thirty-seven years, his territories were annexed to the prov- 
ince of Syria. 

Agrippa, or Herod Agrippa I, was the son of Aristobulus, and grand- 
son of Herod the Great, and sustained various reverses of fortune pre- 
viously to his attaining the royal dignity. At first he resided at Rome 
as a private person, and ingratiated himself into the favor of the em- 
peror Tiberius; but being accused of wishing him dead that Caligula 
might reign, he was thrown into prison by order of Tiberius. On the 
accession of Caligula to the empire, Agrippa was created king of Batanaea 
and Trachonitis, to which Abilene, Judea, and Samaria were subse- 
quently added by the emperor Claudius, [pp. 110, 111] . . . 

Herod Agrippa II, or Junior, was the son of the preceding Herod 
Agrippa, and was educated under the auspices of the emperor Claudius: 
being only seventeen years of age at the time of his father's death, he 
was judged to be unequal to the task of governing the whole of his 
dominions. These were again placed under the direction of a Roman 
procurator or governor, and Agrippa was first king of Chalcis, and after- 
ward of Batanaea, Trachonitis, and Abilene, to which other territories 
were subsequently added, over which he seems to have ruled, with the 
title of King. It was before this Agrippa and his sister Bernice that 
St. Paul delivered his masterly defense (Acts 26), where he is expressly 
termed a king. He was the last Jewish prince of the Herodian family, 
and for a long time survived the destruction of Jerusalem. 

Besides Herodias, who has been mentioned above, the two following 
princesses of the Herodian family are mentioned in the New Testa- 
ment; viz., 

Bernice, the eldest daughter of King Herod Agript)a I, and sister 
to Agrippa II (Acts 25: 13, 23; 26: 30), was first married to her uncle 
Herod, king of Chalcis; after whose death, in order to avoid the merited 
suspicion of incest with her brother Agrippa, she became the wife of 
Polemon, king of Cilicia. . . . 

Drusilla, her sister, and the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa, 
was distinguished for her beauty, and was equally celebrated with Ber- 
nice, for her profligacy, [p. Ill] — ''An Introduction to the Critical Study 
and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures'' Thomas Hartwell Home, B. D., 
Vol, III, pp. 109-111. London: T. Gadell, 1839. 

Higher Criticism, Contrasted with Lower. — Criticism of Scrip- 
ture ("Biblical criticism") is usually divided into what is called 
" lower or textual criticism " and " higher criticism," the latter a phrase 
round which many misleading associations gather. " Lower criticism " 
deals strictly with the text of Scripture, endeavoring to ascertain what 
the real text of each book was as it came from the hands of its author; 
" higher criticism " concerns itself with the resultant problems of age, 
authorship, sources, simple or composite character, historical worth, 
relation to period of origin, etc. The former — " textual criticism " — 
has a well-defined field in which it is possible to apply exact canons of 
judgment: the latter — "higher criticism" — . . . manifestly tends to 
widen out inimitably into regions where exact science cannot follow it, 
where, often, the critic's imagination is his only law. — The Interna- 
tional Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr. M, A., D. D., 
Vol. II, art. " Criticism of the Bible," p. 749. 

Higher Criticism, Real Question Involved in. — Here is no ques- 
tion merely of the strict inerrancy of Scripture, of absolute accuracy in 
unimportant minutiae, of precision in matters of science. This is not the 
issue raised by the theorizing of that class of Biblical critics with which 
we contend, And it is no mere question of the mode of inspiration. 



HIGHER CRITICISM 229 

But it is the question whether any dependence can be placed upon the 
historical truth of the Bible; whether our confidence in the facts 
recorded in the Pentateuch rests upon any really trustworthy basis; 
facts, be it observed, not of mere scientific or antiquarian interest, 
but which mark the course of God's revelations to the patriarchs and 
to Moses. It is the certainty of facts which are vital to the religion 
of the Old Testament, and the denial of whose truth weakens the foun- 
dations on which the New Testament itself is built. The critical theory 
which we have been examining is destructive of all rational certainty 
of the reality of these truths; and thus tends to overturn the historical 
basis of the religion of the Bible. 

It is no merely literary question, then, which this style of criticism 
raises. It is not simply whether the Pentateuch was written by one 
author or another, while its historic truth and its divine authority 
remain unaffected. The truth and evidence of the entire Mosaic history 
are at stake. And with this stands or falls the reality of God's revela- 
tion to Moses and the divine origin of the Old Testament. And this 
again is not only vouched for and testified to by our divine LfOrd and 
Saviour Jesus Christ and his inspired apostles, but upon this the Lrord 
Jesus bases his own claims. Moses wrote of him. The predictions 
uttered and recorded by Moses speak of Christ. The types, of which 
both the Pentateuchal history and the Mosaic institutions are full, point 
to Christ. But if the predictions are not genuine, and the history is 
untrue, and the institutions were not ordained of God, but are simply 
the record of priestly usage, what becomes of the witness which they 
bear to Christ? And must not the religion of the Old Testament sink 
in our esteem from a religion directly revealed of God to one which is 
the outgrowth of the Israelitish mind and heart, under an uplifting 
infiuence from above, it may be, but still proceeding from man, not 
from God? It is then based not on positive truth authoritatively com- 
municated from God to man, but on the aspirations and reflections, the 
yearnings and longings and spiritual struggles of devout and holy men 
seeking after God, with such divine guidance and in-ward illumination 
as good men in every age may enjoy, but that is all. There is no direct 
revelation, no infallible inspiration, no immediate and positive dis- 
closure of the mind and will of God. 

The religion of the Bible is not merely one of abstract doctrines 
respecting God. It does not consist merely in monotheism, nor in right 
notions of the being and perfections of God as abstract truths. Nor 
does it consist merely in devout emotions and aspirations toward the 
divine Being. But both its doctrines and its practical piety are based 
on positive disclosures which God has made of himself in his dealings 
with men and his communications to them. It is a historical religion 
based on palpable outstanding facts, in which God has manifested him- 
self, and by which he has put himself in living relation to men. Appeal 
is throughout made to the mighty deeds and the great wonders wrought 
by his uplifted hand and his outstretched arm in evidence that it is the 
almighty God who has acted and spoken and revealed himself, and no 
mere human imaginings. To discredit these Biblical statements is to 
discredit the Biblical revelation. And this is what is done throughout 
the entire Mosaic period, not by Kuenen and Wellhausen and Stade and 
Cornill merely, who are avowed unbelievers in a supernatural revela- 
tion, but by those likewise who claim to be evangelical critics. 

It is notorious that the long succession of distinguished scholars, 
by whom the divisive hypothesis has been elaborated in its application 
to the Pentateuch, have been unbelievers in an immediate supernatural 
revelation. — " The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch," William Henry 
Green, D. D., LL. D., pp. 163-165. New York: Charles Scriin^r's Sons 
1895. 



230 HIGHER CRITICISM 

Higher Criticism, In Relation to the Miraculous. — There are 
three evident indications of God's immediate presence, which pervade 
the Scriptures from beginning to end, and are inwrought into its entire 
structure, and with which they must reckon who recognize in its contents 
merely that which is natural and human. These are miracle, prophecy, 
and revealed truth, [pp. 173, 174] , . . 

Three different methods have been devised for getting rid of these 
troublesome factors, [p. 174] . . . 

A second mode of dealing with the supernatural, without admitting 
its reality, is that of the old rationalistic exegesis. This regards it 
simply as Oriental exaggeration. It is looked upon as the habit of the 
period to think and speak in superlatives, and to employ grandiloquent 
figures and forms of expression. In order to ascertain the actual mean- 
ing of the writer, these must be reduced to the proportion of ordinary 
events. Thus Eichhorn, the father of the higher criticism, had no 
difficulty in accepting the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and 
defending its credibility, while at the same time he discarded the 
miraculous, [p. 175] ... 

The third mode of banishing the supernatural from the Bible is by 
subjecting it to the processes of the higher criticism. This is the most 
plausible as well as the most effective method of accomplishing this 
result. It is the most plausible because the animus of the movement is 
concealed, and the desired end is reached; not by aiming at it directly 
and avowedly, but as the apparently incidental consequence of investi- 
gations pursued professedly for a different purpose. And it i& the most 
effective because it supplies a complete antidote for the supernatural in 
each of its forms. Every reported miracle is met by the allegation that 
the record dates centuries after its supposed occurrence, leaving ample 
time for the legendary amplification of natural events. Every predic- 
tion which has been so accurately fulfilled that it cannot be explained 
away as a vague anticipation, shrewd conjecture, or fortunate coinci- 
dence, is met by the allegation that it was not committed to writing till 
after the event. Revelations of truth in advance of what the unaided 
faculties of men could be supposed to have attained to, must be recon- 
structed into accordance with the requirements of a gradual scheme of 
development. The stupendous miracles of the Mosaic period, the far- 
reaching predictions of the Pentateuch, and its minute and varied legis- 
lation are all provided for by the critical analysis, which parts it into 
separate documents and assigns these documents severally to six, eight, 
and ten centuries after the exodus from Egypt, [p. 176] 

These criticial results are based professedly on purely literary 
grounds, on diction and style and correspondence with historical sur- 
roundings. And yet he who traces the progress of critical opinion will 
discover that these are invariably subordinated to the end of neutraliz- 
ing the supernatural, and that they are so managed as to lead up to this 
conclusion. The development of critical hypotheses inimical to the 
genuineness and the truth of the books of the Bible has from the be- 
ginning been in the hands of those who were antagonistic to super- 
natural religion, whose interest in the Bible was purely literary, and 
who refused to recognize its claims as an immediate and authoritative 
revelation from God. These hypotheses, which are largely speculative 
and conjectural, are to a great extent based upon and shaped by un- 
proved assumptions of the falsity of positive Scriptural statements. 
They are in acknowledged variance with the historical truth of much 
of the Bible, and require, as is freely confessed, the complete recon- 
struction of the sacred history. They require us to suppose that the 
course of events and the progress of divine revelation must throughout 



HIGHER CRITICISM 231 

have been very different from the representations of the Bible, [p. 177] 
— " The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch," William Henry Green, 
D. D., LL. D., pp. 173-177. New York: Charles 8cril>ner's Sons, 1895. 

Higher Criticism, In Relation to Unbelief^ — It is noteworthy 
that the partition hypotheses [according to which the Pentateuch is a 
combination of various writings] in all their forms have been elaborated 
from the beginning in the interest of unbelief. The unfriendly animus 
of an opponent does not indeed absolve us from patiently and candidly 
examining his arguments, and accepting whatever facts he may adduce, 
though we are not bound to receive his perverted interpretation of them. 
Nevertheless we cannot intelligently nor safely overlook the palpable 
bias against the supernatural which has infected the critical theories 
which we have been reviewing, from first to last. All the acknowledged 
leaders of the movement have, without exception, scouted the reality 
of miracles and prophecy and immediate divine revelation in their 
genuine and evangelical sense. Their theories are all inwrought with 
naturalistic presuppositions, which cannot be disentangled from them 
without their falling to pieces. Evangelical scholars in Germany, as 
elsewhere, steadfastly opposed these theories, refuted the arguments 
adduced in their support, and exposed their malign tendencies. It is 
only recently that there has been an attempt at compromise on the part 
of certain believing scholars, who are disposed to accept these critical 
theories and endeavor to harmonize them with the Christian faith. But 
the inherent vice in these systems cannot be eradicated. The inevitable 
result has been to lower the Christian faith to the level of these per- 
verted theories instead of lifting the latter up to the level of a Chris- 
tian standard. 

According to the critical hypothesis, even in the most moderate 
hands, the situation is this: The Pentateuch, instead of being one con- 
tinuous and self-consistent history from the pen of Moses, is made up of 
four distinct documents which have been woven together, but which the 
critics claim that they are able to separate and restore, as far as the sur- 
viving remnants of each permit, to their original condition. These sev- 
erally represent the traditions of the Mosaic age as they existed six, 
eight, and ten centuries after the exodus. When these are compared, 
they are found to be in perpetual conflict. Events wear an entirely dif- 
ferent complexion in one from that which they have in another; the 
characters of those who appear in them, the motives by which they are 
actuated, and the whole impression of the period in which they live is 
entirely different. 

It is very evident from all this why the critics tell us that the 
doctrine of inspiration must be modified. If these Pentateuchal docu- 
ments, as they describe them, were inspired, it must have been in a 
very peculiar sense. It is not a question of inerrancy, but of wholesale 
mutual contradiction which quite destroys their credit as truthful his- 
tories. And these contradictions, be it observed, are not in the Penta- 
teuch itself, but result from the mangling and the mal-interpretations 
to which it has been subjected by the critics, — Id., pp. 157, 158. 

Higher Criticism and the Prophets. — We saw that the inquisi- 
torial method of the higher critics allows them to cast doubts on any- 
thing, and on any one; to prove or to disprove anything they like; to 
accept or to condemn just as they fancy it. Far from being astounded 
at having fought shy, to a certain extent, of the prophets, we must 
rather expect them to declare, in corpore. what at present is said by 
a few of them, such as E. Havet, M. Vernes, and others; namely, that 



232 HIGHER CRITICISM 



" the prophetic books, far from having that high antiquity which is 
attributed to them, were not written before the second century b. c. " 

In fact, the lenience and patience of the higher critics with regard 
to the prophets is inconceivable. Having victoriously reduced Abraham, 
Moses, Joshua, Samson, and David to nice little astral myths, how can 
they tarry so long over mere prophets; that is, men mostly of lowly 
origin, with no official character, no particular social status, nor men 
of independent means. The higher critics, down to Wellhausen, do, it 
is true, their best to apply to the prophets as many pin pricks as 
possible. They deny the authenticity of Amos 2: 4, 5 — just 4, 5; then 
also 4: 13; 5: 8; 9: 5; etc. 

But is this petty warfare really worthy of men so grand and re- 
doubtable? Smaller enemies than the prophets have long exclaimed, 
" Sword cuts, if you please, but no pin pricks! " Would it not be more 
charitable to use against the prophets the full armory of the torture, the 
full impact of the scientific instruments so carefully determined by 
the judges in witch trials of the seventeenth century? Would it not 
be more in keeping with the strict scientific method of higher criti- 
cism to say to the prophets: 

" Gentlemen, we regret, but your pretense of having lived in the 
eighth or the seventh century b. c, and of having written certain pro- 
phetic writings, is really quite unacceptable. In the first place, you are 
fully aware of the fact that you never lived at all, and that your 
hypothetical existence at present you owe simply to our need of proving 
that you too are astral myths. Yours is what our teachers would have 
called a subpotential existence for the sake of argument. True, some 
people refer to numerous pieces of evidence coming from Assyrian and 
other independent sources, confirming many a detail in your writings. 
But is it not evident in your case, as it was in the case of Abraham, that 
the more local color one can show to exist in your pretended writings, 
the more certain it becomes that, as our colleague Vernes profoundly 
said, your local color was probably superimposed by a late and latest 
interpolator? Quien sube [who knows]? as our friends, the sagacious 
Spaniards, say. Interpolators are so wily. 

" But we are more than a match for such wiles. The more subtle 
the wiles, the more subtle the meshes in which we capture them. The 
idea of prophets and prophetic writings, we admit, is not quite bad. 
It suits the agitated times of the eighth century b. c. to perfection. 
It is just what one might expect in times of great tribulation, and we 
are not unwilling to credit the interpolator with a large measure of 
historic finesse. He clearly thought that when the Athenians in times 
of need solicited the help of Solon — provided they ever did so, which 
we must leave to the judgment of our philological colleagues; or if the 
Florentines implored the help of Savonarola, and the Genevans that of 
Calvin, — then the Hebrews of the eighth century b. c. may also have 
desired and needed some such help from what in their ignorance they 
called prophets. But, as already remarked, the very finesse of the in- 
terpolator betrays him. So nice a harmony between what is and what 
is expected to be, is in the highest degree suspicious. Gentlemen, we 
regret to say that clever interpolators have given you an utterly false 
impression of your existence." 

The preceding oration of the higher critics, although not directly 
quotable from their writings, is, as every student of the matter knows, 
a true resume of the drift of their endless arguments about the pro- 
phetic writings. The method they use must inevitably lead them to a 
rejection of the most probable events and persons; and it is no serious 
exaggeration to say that higher critics, after successfully exterminating 



HIGHER CRITICISM 233 

the great personalities of history, must, out of sheer lack of persons to 
be dissolved in air, attack and destroy, without necessarily astralizing 
one another. Romulus killed Remus; Professor Niebuhr killed Romu- 
lus; Professors Gerlach and Bachofen killed Professor Niebuhr; and so 
in infinitum. 

This preposterous method must, and we confidently trust will, 
come to its overdue end. It must, at any rate, be made clear to the 
millions of honest people who want to use their Bible as their strongest 
and most comforting consolation for life and after-life, that all the 
arguments of the higher critics have so far not been able to move a 
stone from the edifice inside which over a hundred generations have 
sought and found their spiritual bliss. — " The Failure of the ' Higher 
Criticism' of the Bible," Emil Reich, pp. 174-178. Cincinnati: Jennings 
and Graham, copyright 1905. 

Higher Criticism, The Test of Time Applied to. — We do not al- 
ways see most clearly the things that are nearest to us. Our estimates 
of contemporaneous matters often need revision. We must bow to the 
logic of events, and accept the verdict of history. If in the dawning of 
the fortieth century, it shall be found that the law and the prophets 
are obsolete, the Gospels and Epistles discarded, Moses forgotten, and 
Paul and his writings set aside to make room for the inerrant produc- 
tions of Wellhausen, Kuenen, Briggs, and Harper; if the queen of Sheba 
of that remote period, in her quest for wisdom, shall take a limited 
through ticket for Chicago, without so much as asking for a stopover 
at Jerusalem; if it shall be found at last that men have lived in this 
world for centuries and millenniums, not knowing whence they came 
or how they got here, until the last half of the nineteenth century — the 
Creator having kept these things from wise and prudent men like Adam, 
and Enoch, and Abraham, and Moses, and David, and Solomon, and 
Daniel, and Paul, and Jesus of Nazareth, that he might reveal them to 
such devout and guileless babes as Darwin, with his " early, apelike 
progenitors;" Huxley, with his life-producing, jellylike Bathybius, at 
the bottom of the sea; Haeckel, with his "spontaneous generation" of 
"organisms without organs; " Tyndall, with his prayer gauge and his 
agnosticism; and the higher critics, with their conglomerate theories 
and inventions; and if the experience of twenty centuries shall dem- 
onstrate the superiority of the new and inerrant evangel which these 
men are proclaiming; the world will rejoice in the "survival of the 
fittest," — unless, indeed, the higher critics of those times shall dissect 
and discredit these new Scriptures, and discarding them, produce yet 
" another gospel," which shall be entirely their own. 

If it shall then appear that the hunted prophets who wandered in 
sheepskins and goatskins, and were destitute, affiicted, and tormented, 
" of whom the world was not worthy," have gone down before the 
onslaught of the learned and well-salaried professors of modern uni- 
versities; if it shall appear that the word of the Lord which they 
uttered at the loss of all things and at the peril of life itself, has paled 
its ineffectual fires before the rising radiance of oracular higher criti- 
cism; if it shall then be learned that God hath chosen the rich in this 
world, poor in faith, and heirs of the kingdom — who can tell how wel- 
come this information may prove to those who suppose that gain is 
godliness, and that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of 
a needle than for a poor man to enter the kingdom of heaven? 

But if, from the far-distant mountain peaks of the fortieth century 
— provided this groaning creation has not ere that time been " delivered 
from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the chil- 



234 HIGHER CRITICISM 



dren of God," and entered upon those dateless cycles of bliss and bless- 
ing where centuries are no more numbered — mankind shall still look 
back beyond Astruc and Wellhausen to Moses and the prophets; if the 
little tracts of the hunger-bitten apostle to the Gentiles shall still be 
read, while the huge tomes of well-fed professors are forgotten; if the 
men who stood alone and faced the lions shall be found to be as clear 
sighted as their critics who are backed by millions and millionaires; 
if prophets and apostles still shine " as stars forever and ever," while 
learned experts are lost in haze and gloom and darkness; if it be seen 
that Jesus of Nazareth is still the light of the world, after all that 
higher critics have said by way of correcting his errors and exhibiting 
his "limitations;" if the law still goes forth from Zion instead of Chi- 
cago, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem instead of from some 
German university or beer garden; if, instead of pocket editions of the 
works of the higher critics for use in family worship, in Sunday schools, 
and in churches, the writings of Moses and the prophets, and Christ 
and the apostles, are still read in the synagogues every Sabbath day, 
while the learned lucubrations and ponderous misrepresentations of the 
higher critics of our times are forgotten — the people who live in those 
days must accept the conditions they cannot alter, and inquire for the 
eternal paths, and see where is the good way, and walk therein. Jer. 
6: 16. — " The Anti-Infidel Library," H. L. Hastings, "More Bricks from 
the Babel of the Higher Critics," pp. 172, 173. Boston: Scriptural Tract 
Repository, copyright 1895. 

Higher Criticism, Overthrown by the Excavator's Spade. — Evo- 
lution is the keynote of modern science, both physical and psychological, 
the magical key with which it hopes to unlock the secrets of the uni- 
verse. There has been evolution and development in history, as well as 
in the forms of life, in the systems of the material universe or in the 
processes of thought. There must have been evolution also in religious 
and moral ideas, in political conceptions and theological dogmas. If 
once we could discover its law, we should be able to trace the course it 
has followed, and know what is first and what is last in the religious 
systems of the past. 

The disciples of the " higher criticism " have assumed not only that 
the law is discoverable, but also that they have themselves discovered 
it. They know precisely how religious ideas must have developed in 
the past, and can consequently determine the relative age of the various 
forms in which they are presented to us. [pp. 115, 116] . . . 

The " critical assumption," in fact, is an inversion of the true 
method of science. We must first know what was the order of the phe- 
nomena before we can discover the law of evolution which they have 
followed. It is only when we have ascertained what forms of life or 
matter have succeeded others that we can trace in them a process of 
development. We cannot reverse the method, and determine the se- 
quence of the phenomena from a hypothetical law of evolution, [pp. 
116, 117] . . . 

In fact, the whole application of a supposed law of evolution to the 
religious and secular history of the ancient Oriental world is founded 
on what we now know to have been a huge mistake. The Mosaic age, 
instead of coming at the dawn of ancient Oriental culture, really be- 
longs to the evening of its decay. The Hebrew legislator was sur- 
rounded on all sides by the influences of a decadent civilization. Reli- 
gious systems and ideas had followed one another for centuries; the 
ideas had been pursued to their logical conclusions, and the systems had 
been worked out in a variety of forms. In Egypt and Babylonia alike 



HIGHER CRITICISM 235 

there was degeneracy rather than progress, retrogression rather than 
development. The actual condition of the Oriental world in the age of 
Moses, as it has been revealed to us by archeology, leaves little room 
for the particular kind of evolution of which the " higher criticism " 
has dreamed. 

But in truth the archeological discoveries of the last half-dozen 
years in Egypt and Krete have once for all discredited the claim of 
" criticism " to apply its theories of development to the settlement of 
chronological or historical questions, [pp. 118, 119] . . . 

The awakening has come with a vengeance. The skepticism of the 
" critic " has been proved to have been but the measure of his own 
ignorance, the want of evidence to have been merely his own ignorance 
of it. The spad© of the excavator in Krete has effected more in three 
or four years than the labors and canons of the " critics " in half a 
century. The whole fabric he had raised has gone down like a house 
of cards, and with it the theories of development of which he felt so 
confident, [p. 121] — " Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies," 
A. H. Sayce, LL. D., D. D., pp. 115-121. New York: Fleming H. Revell 
Company. 

Higher Criticism, Two Main Pillars of, Overthrown. — The ex- 
istence of laws in the books of Genesis and Exodus is evident, though 
there is no formal record of their delivery. (Cp. Ex. 18: 16.) 

Doubtless some were made known to mankind, as such, by God, 
e. g. (1) the law of the Sabbath, Gen. 2:3. . . . 

In A. D. 1901, the Code of Amraphel (Khammurabi) (Gen. 14: 1) 
was discovered in Susa by M. J. de Morgan. The latest date for this 
code is 2139 b. c. 

Eight hundred years before Moses, these laws governed the peo- 
ples from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea, and from Persia to the 
Mediterranean, and were in force throughout Canaan. 

This discovery overthrew the two main pillars of the " higher 
critics," one of which was that such writing was unknown before 
Moses; the other, that a legal code was impossible before the Jewish 
kings. — " Ttie Companion Bible" Part I, " The Pentateuch," Appendix, 
p. 22. London: Oxford University Press. 

Higher Criticism, Results of Assyriology upon. — We may now 
sum up the results of the latest discovery in Assyriology. It has for- 
ever shattered the " critical " theory which would put the Prophets 
before the Law, it has thrown light on the form and character of the 
Mosaic code, and it has indirectly vindicated the historical character 
of the narratives of Genesis. If such are the results of a single dis- 
covery, what may we not expect when the buried libraries of Babylonia 
have been more fully excavated, and their contents copied and read? — 
''Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies," A. H. Sayce, LL. D., 
D. D., p. 87. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. 

Hinduism. — Hinduism, or Brahmanism, is the religion of the 
great majority of the people, and Mohammedanism comes next. Of the 
294,361,056 inhabitants of India, British and feudatory, in 1901, 207,- 
147,026 were Hindus, 62,458,077 Mohammedans, 8,711,360 aboriginal 
pagans, 9,476,759 Buddhists (almost all in Burma), 1,334,148 Jains, 
94,190 Parsees (chiefly in Bombay), 18,228 Jews. In Bengal there are 
25,265,342 Mohammedans to 46,740,661 Hindus; in the Punjab, 12,183,345 
to 10,344,469 Hindus. The Sikh religion is professed, according to the 
census for the Punjab, by 2,102,896 of its inhabitants. The Christians 
number 2,923,241. Buddhism at one period prevailed very generally 



236 HINDUISM 



throughout India; it is now confined to Bhutan, Sikkim, and 
Burma, [p. 246] . . . 

The Popular Faith. — This must be noted as it is seen among the 
Hindus today. The triad of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, 
and Siva the destroyer, is still remembered. One of them (Brahma) 
has lapsed into an abstraction, and practical adoration is divided be- 
tween the other two. The Sivaites are chiefly, but not entirely, in the 
north; the Vishnuites in the south. The Sivaite worship is chiefly 
attracted by the wife of Siva, under various names — Kali, Dtirga, 
Parbati, and so forth. Vishnu, again, is almost lost in the worship 
paid to his two incarnations (avatars), Rama and Krishna. Lesser 
divinities, such as Hanuman, the " monkey god," and Ganesh, the 
" elephant god," are also honored. The sanctity of the Ganges (Ganga) 
remains; and when the river is lost in the delta, that sanctity is to some 
extent continued to the Hugli, flowing past Calcutta. The Nerbudda 
also is sacred. It is hard to gauge the thoughts of Hindus regarding a 
future state. They think of a heaven (swargaj and a hell; also of 
giant demons (rakshas). From their demeanor in the presence of 
certain death it may be inferred that they expect absorption into the 
divine essence or entity, through the intervention of the god or gods 
they have worshiped. 

The Caste System', which is a potent factor in the national life, 
does not appear to have been a part of the Vedic religion originally. 
But it arose subsequently with a religious sanction which is still main- 
tained. The Brahman caste, including the priests, is held to have some- 
thing divine in it. Most of the several millions of Brahmans follow 
secular employment; but even the humblest of them is hedged round 
by a certain sort of sacredness. This caste, together with the Kshatri, 
or warrior caste, and the Vaisya, or trader, caste (including the sub- 
division of Kayasths, or writers), are held to be twice-born fdwija). 
This character does not attach to the Sudra caste, which includes the 
masses. The restrictions in respect of food and drink (water) in the 
caste system are most severe and narrow. Caste is lost from any of 
the infringements that are inevitable in foreign intercourse. But re's- 
toration to caste, though often expensive, is sufiiciently fagile. Within 
each caste as a division of the people there are subdivisions infinitely 
numerous, which as a whole have been reckoned at several thou- 
sands. ... 

Buddhism is now for the people only a nominis umbra; probably 
the words " buddh," as abstract wisdom, and " nirvana," as a haven of 
celestial quiescence, are remembered. In the east Himalayas, Sikkim, 
and Bhutan it is really Lamaism, or the medieval corruption of Bud- 
dhism, of which the headquarters are at Lhasa, in Tibet, with the Dalai 
Lama and the incarnations. The representations of Buddha or Gau- 
tama have the aspect of ineffable repose which Buddhism has everywhere 
exhibited. The caste system does not exist, but the monastic order is all- 
powerful. In Burma the faith is still mainly that which was settled 
at the last great council of Asoka, in North India, before the Christian 
era. Here also caste is not acknowledged; but the priestly and monas- 
tic orders, though they cannot arrogate a status like Brahmans, are very 
influential. 

Jainism is believed to have originally sprung from the same school 
of speculative thought as Buddhism. It has sacred books and saints of 
its own, in a long line or series, and it promises a future quiescence 
hardly distinguishable from annihilation. It has an excessive tender- 
ness for animal life. It recognizes caste. Its adherents are largely 
found in the banking and mercantile classes. — Standard Encyclopedia 
of the World's Knowledge, Vol XIV, art "India,'' pp. U6, 248-250. 



HISTORY, AUTHORITIES FOR 



237 



History. — General View of Authorities for Ecclesiastical His 
TORY IN the First Eight Centuries, 



Greek Writers 



Ecclesiastical 
Hegesippus, 120-185 



Eusebius, 263-340 
Athanasius, 296-371 
Gelasius, 320-394 
Philostorgius, 368-430 
Palladius, 367-431 
Philip of Side, fl. 425 
Irenaeus Comes, 395-455 
Socrates, 380-445 . 
Sozomen, fl. 440 
Theodoret, 386-458 
Hesychius, fl. 430 
Gelasius of Cyzicus, fl. 475 
Basil of Cilicia, fl. 520 
Zacharias Rhetor, fl. 540 
John of Aegae 
Theodorus Lector 
Cyril of Scythopolis, fl. 550. 
Evagrius, 536-600 
Joannes Moschus, fl. 610 



Secular 
Josephus, 37-98 

Dion Casius, 155-235 
Herennius Dexippus, 220-280 



Eunapius, 347-415 
Zosimus, 370-430 

Olympiorus, fl. 425 



Priscus Panites, 420-471 
Malchus, fl. 495 
Petrus Patricius, 500-562 
Procopius, 500-565 
Agathias, 536-582 

Paul the Silentiary, fl. 563 
Menander, fl. 580 
Theophylact, fl. 620 



Latin Writers 



Ecclesiastical 



Lactantius, 250-325 
Rufinus, 345-410 • 
Jerome, 342-420 
Sulpicius Severus, 363-420 
Orosius, fl. 410 
Hilary of Aries, 400-449 
Gennadius, fl. 490 
Liberatus, fl. 535 
Cassiodorus, 465-565 
Gregory of Tours, 544-595 
Fortunatus, 530-605 
Gildas, fl. 560 
Isidore, 560-536 
Ildefonso, fl. 660 
Julianus, fl. 680 
Beda, 673-735 
Paul Warnefrid, 730-800 
Liber Pontificalls 



Secular 
Tacitus, fl. 110 
Suetonius, fl. 110 
Hist. August. Scriptores 

Sex. Aurelius Victor, fl. 360 

Amm. Marcellinus, fl. 380 



Annales Fuldenses 
Annates Laurissenses 
Annales Einhardi 
Codex Carolinus 



— "A Dictionary of Christian Biography," Smith and Wace^Yol. Ill, art, 
''Historians, Ecclesiastical," p. 112. London: John Murray, 1882. 



History Between the Testaments. — We will now look at this 
period of history [the four hundred years between Malachi and John 
the Baptist], taking for our guide Daniel 11, whose circumstantial de- 



238 HISTORY, BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS * 

tails of the first 240 years make it unlike any other Old Testament 
prophecy. Its picture of Judah's suzerains passes by a transition hard 
to mark into a far-reaching vision of the end of the world. . , . 

Perfect religious liberty and sympathy with their rulers, born of 
a common monotheism and hatred of idolatry, made the Persian domi- 
nation one of the happiest periods of Jewish history. Of the century 
following Nehemiah's rule we know almost nothing. Then the young 
Greek conqueror of the world, whose career is vividly pictured in 
Daniel, and who believed himself to be the Heaven-sent reconciler and 
pacificator of all mankind, spared and favored Judea, and linked East 
and West in a bond which has never since been broken, thus preparing 
the way for Christianity with its Eastern cradle and its Western throne. 
His work was perpetuated in Alexandria, the city he founded to bear 
his name, a second capital of the Jewish faith henceforth, and the 
common portal of the East and West to this day. The spiritual gains of 
the Persian period were followed by the intellectual gains of the Greek 
period, and on the banks of the Nile a new Israel, trained in all the 
wisdom of a new Egypt, arose. 

After Alexander's death in 323, the maritime regions of Palestine 
were for some twenty years buffeted in the strife between his successors. 
Then followed a peaceful century under five Macedonian kings of 
Egypt, whose capital was Alexandria. All are mentioned as " kings 
of the south " in Daniel 11. They were, [p. 165] 

1. Ptolemy Soter, 320-283 (Dan. 11: 5). 

2. Ptolemy Philadelphus, 285-247 (v. 6). 

3. Ptolemy Euergetes, 247-222 (vs. 7, 9). 

4. Ptolemy Philopater, 222-205 (v. 11). 

5. Ptolemy Epiphanes, 205-181 (v. 14). 

Under Ptolemy Soter lived Simon the Just, the greatest high 
priest between Joshua the son of Jehozadak and Jonathan the Asmonean. 
He is said to have finished Ezra's work by completing the Old Testament 
canon and Nehemiah's work by fortifying the temple. 

Under Ptolemy Philadelphus was produced the Septuagint. The 
Greek tongue had already proved itself the mos* perfect expression of 
human thought by becoming practically universal, and now God's 
Word appeared in what was hereafter to be the language of the New 
Testament. The Septuagint has been well called " The first Apostle of 
the Gentiles." 

Ptolemy Philopater alienated the Jews by forcing his way into 
the holy of holies and cruelly persecuting them, when a supernatural 
terror drove him forth. He was then at war with the Syrian king, 
who had just taken " the well-fenced city " .of Sidon. Him the Jews 
rashly welcomjed as a deliverer, and thus passed under the sway of 
three Macedonian kings of Syria, whose capital was Antioch, and who 
are mentioned in Daniel 11 as " kings of the north." They were, 1. 
Antiochus the Great, 223-187 (Dan. 11: 10, 15); 2. Seleucus IV, 187-175 
(v. 20); 3. Antiochus Epiphanes, 175-164 (v. 21, etc.). 

Hitherto Israel's foreign suzerains, while exacting tribute, had 
respected their customs and left the conduct of their affairs to their 
own princes and priests. To the Ptolemies their relations had been 
almost wholly friendly, and they were yielding more and more to the 
spell of Greek art and culture. But between them and the Syrian kings 
there was antagonism from the beginning, ending in the wanton attempt 
of Antiochus Epiphanes (a half -mad despot whose character reappears 
in great measure in Nero 200 years later) to Hellenize Judea com- 
pletely, to substitute the heathen " god of fortresses " for the God of 
Israel, and to extinguish their ancient religion by^a ruthless persecu- 



HISTORY, BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS 239 

tion, which proved in the end its truest safeguard. The determined 
effort to destroy or deface every copy of the Law increased love for 
God's Word and zeal for its multiplication; the determined effort to 
trample out their nation roused an indomitable spirit of patriotism, 
which gave unity and complete independence to a race that had been a 
subject race for nearly four and one-half centuries, [pp. 165-167] . . . 
Mattathias, a descendant of Eleazar, son of Aaron, had five heroic 
sons, who achieved Judah's deliverance and founded a family which 
ruled for more than a century. From its ancestor Chashmon it was 
called Asmonean, or Maccabean, from a word meaning " hammer " 
(comp. Jer. 50: 23), or from the initials of the first sentence of Ex. 15: 11. 
These priestly rulers were, 

1. Judas, 166-161 ) 

2. Jonathan, 161-143 ( sons of Mattathias. 

3. Simon, 143-135 > 

4. John Hyrcanus I, 135-106, son of Simon. 

5. Aristobulus I, 106-105 ( go^g of Hyrcanus I. 

6. Alexander Jannseus, 105-78 S 

7. Alexandra, 78-69, widow of Jannaeus. 

8. Hyrcanus II, 3- months ) 

9. Aristobulus II, 69-63 > sons of Jannaeus and Alexandra. 
8. Hyrcanus II, 63-40 V 

10. Antigonus, 40-37, son of Aristobulus II. 

Judas is the Wallace of Hebrew history. No one ever united more 
generous valor with a better cause, and of all military chiefs he ac- 
complished the largest ends with the smallest means. As Israel's pre- 
server in its extremity, he has a place beside Moses, Samuel, and 
David. In 168 the standard was raised. In 167 he won decisive vic- 
tories at Samaria, Bethharon, and Emmaus in Philistia, and at Beth- 
zur in 166, thus regaining the temple. The crowning conflict of Adasa 
or Bethhoron, the Marathon of Jewish history, took place in 161, on the 
scene of Joshua's greatest triumph in 1450, traditionally also the scene 
of Sennacherib's destruction in 701. The army of Judas " advanced 
to victory," says the historian, " fighting with their hands and praying 
with their hearts." In the same year, the great " Hammer of the Gen- 
tiles " fell at Eleasa, the Hebrew Thermopyl«, dying, as all his brothers 
did, a violent death. 

The last undoubted representative of the high priest Joshua fled 
in 167 from the desecrated temple to Egypt, and at Leontopolis founded 
a secondary rather than a rival temple, to form a religious center for 
the Hellenistic Jews of the Dispersion, thus professing to fulfil Isaiah 
19: 18, 19. This lasted for three centuries. Great was the degradation 
of the high priesthood, when in 162 the Syrians gave it to Alcimus, who 
had placed himself at the head of the Hellenizing party. In Jonathan, 
however, a new and noble line of high priests was instituted. But alter- 
ation of a succession which had remained unbroken for nearly 900 
years, paved the way for further changes, and one rabbi finds an ex- 
planation of Prov. 10: 27 in the fact that during 410 years the first 
temple had eighteen priests, while the second temple, during 426 years, 
had more than three hundred. 

Simon snapped the last Syrian fetter when in 142 he took the citadel 
that overawed God's sanctuary, and his successor saw the issue of a 
forty-years' strife in the formal recognition of Judah's independence 
in 128. Hyrcanus I also conquered her two nearest relatives and bit- 
terest enemies, Edom and Samaria, and in 109 razed the rival temple of 
Gerizim to the ground, thus triumphantly closing the sixty years of 



240 HISTORY, JEWISH 

ecclesiastical commonwealth which form the first and best half of the 
Maccabean age. 

Seventy years of ecclesiastical monarchy (the last thirty-seven 
merely nominal) followed. For the last six Maccabean rulers assumed 
the title, not of "king of Israel," but of "king of the Jews" (contrast 
John 1: 49 and Matt. 27: 37), the new phrase marking the new char- 
acter of the monarchy. Their Greek names indicate the growing 
strength of Hellenism. Already in the reign of Hyrcanus the party 
strife between the two opposed sects of Pharisees and Sadducees, 
henceforth to play so large a part in Jewish history, had begun. The 
self-seeking ambition of the later Asmoneans led to family discord and 
political confusion, till Alexander, grandson of the Simon whose wis- 
dom and valor " had made his honorable name renowned unto the 
end of the world," was a detested tyrant, and six years of civil war 
between his two sons ended in appeal to the arbitration of Rome. That 
ever-encroaching and irresistible power restored Hyrcanus II to nomi- 
nal rule, and from b. c. 37 to a. d, 6 an Edomite dependent of Rome and 
his son held imposing sovereignty over Jacob's descendants. But prac- 
tically from B. c. 63 to the awful close of their history as a nation, the 
Jews had no king but Caesar. Aristobulus III, grandson of both Aris- 
tobulus II and Hyrcanus II, was the last Asmonean high priest, and his 
beautiful and ill-fated sister Mariamne, wife to the Herod of Matthew 
2: 1, and grandmother of the Herod of Acts 12: 1, and of Herodias, was 
the last of her race. [pp. 167-169] — " Clews to Holy Writ;' M. L. G. 
Petrie, B. A., pp. 165-169. New York: American Tract Society, 1893. 

History, Jewish, Promise of Christ in. — And thus it is that we 
find the promise of a Christ in Jewish history. We find in that history 
the foundation and the germ of all that was afterward claimed for 
Christ and advanced in his name. We find there ages before he came 
or any such claims were ever advanced, the distinct promise of a 
seed in which the nations should be blessed. However we interpret 
that promise, whether of the seed of Abraham or of a certain individual 
of his family, whether we regard him or his family, or a certain indi- 
vidual of his family, as the channel or as the standard of blessing, 
it is equa;lly true when applied to Christ. He proclaimed himself, 
and was proclaimed, as the fountain of life and the one source of 
blessing to mankind. 

We find there the distinct promise of a great prophet, who should 
stand like Moses between God and man. In the whole cycle of history 
there is no name but one on behalf of which any such claim can be 
advanced. Christ may not have been that great prophet, but at least 
there was none other greater than he; and in that case the promise 
which has existed for three thousand years, and is still a promise, has 
signally failed, and though history has revealed and confirmed its truth, 
it must be pronounced a lie. 

But we find there also the distinct promise of a king whose throne 
is to be established forever; and yet before many centuries the kingdom 
of David is overthrown, and in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate 
we hear the people of David crying aloud, " We have no king but 
Cassar; " while One who claimed descent from the son of Jesse was led 
away to be crucified, and the superscription was written over him, con- 
taining the indictment upon which he suffered, " This is Jesus of Naza- 
reth, the King of the Jews;" and before he was born, we are told 
that it had been said, " The Lord God shall give unto him the throne 
of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for- 
ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." 



HITTITES 241 

And, lastly, we find there from beginning to end the deep impress 
of a sacrificial system, which must have been unmeaning and self- 
imposed, and is consequently an unexplained phenomenon in history, 
if it did not lead upward and point onward to the perfect priesthood 
and sacrifice of One who should be called, not after the order of Aaron, 
but after the power of an endless life. — " The Religion of the Christ," 
Rev. Stanley Leathes, M. A., pp. 90-92. New York: Pott, Young & Co., 
1874. 

Hittites. — It is now known that this people is to be identified 
with the Kheta of the Egyptians and the Khatti of the Assyrians. It 
will be recalled that the Egyptians under Tehutimes III waged war 
against the Kheta, as did Seti in a later succeeding generation. . . . 

At a slightly later period, when the new Assyrian Empire was 
waxing strong, the Hittites found an enemy on the other side in Tiglath- 
pileser, who defeated them in a memorable battle, as also a few cen- 
turies later did Ashurnazirpal. The latter prince, it would appear, 
completely subjected them and carried their princes into captivity. Yet 
they waxed strong again, and took up arms in alliance with Ben-Hadad 
of Syria against Shalmaneser II in the year 855; and though again 
defeated, their power was not entirely broken until the year 717 b. c, 
when Sargon utterly subjected them and deported the inhabitants of 
their city of Carchemish to a city of Assyria, repeopling it with his 
own subjects. 

All these details of the contests of the Hittites against the Egyp- 
tians on the one hand and Assyrians on the other were quite unknown 
until the records of the monuments of Egypt and Assyria were made 
accessible through the efforts of recent scholars. But it now appears, 
judged only by the records of their enemies, that the Hittites were a 
very powerful and important nation for many centuries, and more 
recent explorations of Asia Minor have brought to light various monu- 
ments, which are believed to be records made by the Hittites them- 
selves. — " The Historians' History of the World,'' edited Ity Henry Smith 
Williams, LL. D., Vol. II, pp. 391, 392. New York: The Outlook Com- 
pany, 1904. 

Hittites, Modern Discoveries Concerning.. — A few years ago there 
was no one who suspected that a great empire had once existed in 
Western Asia and contended on equal terms with both Egypt and 
Assyria, the founders of which were the little-noticed Hittites of the 
Old Testament. Still less did any one dream that these same Hittites 
had once carried their arms, their art, and their religion to the shores 
of the ^gean, and that the early civilization of Greece and Europe was 
as much indebted to them as it was to the Phoenicians. 

The discovery was made in 1879. Recent exploration and excava- 
tion had shown that the primitive art and culture of Greece, as re- 
vealed, for example, by Dr. Schliemann's excavations at Mykense, were 
influenced by a peculiar art and culture emanating from Asia Minor. 
Here, too, certain strange monuments had been discovered, which 
form a continuous chain from Lydia in the west to Kappadokia and 
Lykaonia in the east. The best known of these are certain rock sculp- 
tures found at Boghaz Keui and Eyuk, on the eastern side of the 
Halys, and two figures in relief in the Pass of Karabel, near Sardes, 
which the old Greek historian, Herodotus, had long ago supposed to 
be memorials of the Egyptian conqueror Sesostris, or Ramses II. 

Meanwhile other discoveries were being made in lands more imme- 
diately connected with the Bible. Scholars had learned from the 
Egyptian inscriptions that before the days of the exodus the Egyptian 
monarchs had been engaged in fierce struggles with the powerful nation 
16 



242 HITTITES 

of the Hittites, whose two chief seats were at Kadesh, on the Orontes, 
and Carchemish, on the Euphrates, and who were able to summon to 
their aid subject allies not only from Palestine, but also far away from 
Lydia and the Troad, on the western coast of Asia Minor. Ramses II 
himself, the Pharaoh of the oppression, had been glad to make peace 
with his antagonists; and the treaty which provided, among other 
things, for the amnesty of political offenders who had found a shelter 
during the war among one or other of the two combatants, was cemented 
by the marriage of the Egyptian king with the daughter of his rival- 
A century or two afterward Tiglath-Pileser I, of Assyria, found his 
passage across the Euphrates barred by the Hittites of Carchemish and 
their Kolkhian mercenaries. From this time forward the Hittites proved 
dangerous enemies to the Assyrian kings in their attempts to extend 
the empire toward the west, until at last, in b. c. 717, Sargon succeeded 
in capturing their rich capital, Carchemish, and in making it the seat 
of an Assyrian satrap. Henceforth the Hittites disappear from history. 
But they had already left their mark on the pages of the Old 
Testament. The Canaanite who had betrayed his fellow citizens at 
Beth-el to the Israelites, dared not intrust himself to his countrymen, 
but went away "into the land of the Hittites." Judges 1: 26. Solomon 
imported horses from Egypt, which he sold to the Syrians and the Hit- 
tites (1 Kings 10: 28, 29), and when God had sent a panic upon the 
camp of the Syrians before Jerusalem, they had imagined that "the 
king of Israel had hired against them the kings of the Hittites and the 
kings of the Egyptians." 2 Kings 7: 6. Kadesh itself, the southern 
Hittite capital, is mentioned in a passage where the Hebrew text is 
unfortunately corrupt. 2 Sam. 24: 6. Here the Septuagint shows us that 
the officers sent by David to number the people, in skirting the northern 
frontier of his kingdom, came as far as " G-ilead and the land of the 
Hittites of Kadesh." In the extreme south of Palestine an offshoot of 
the race had been settled from an early period. These are the Hit- 
tites of whom we hear in Genesis in connection with the patriarchs. 
Hebron was one of their cities, and Hebron, we are told (Num. 13: 22), 
" was built seven years before Zoan," or Tanis, the capital of the 
Hyksos conquerors of Egypt. This suggests that the Hittites formed 
part of the Hyksos forces, and that some of them, instead of entering 
Egypt, remained behind im southern Canaan. The suggestion is con- 
firmed by a statement of the Egyptian historian Manetho, who asserts 
that Jerusalem was founded by the Hyksos after their expulsion from 
Egypt; and Jerusalem, it will be remembered, had, according to 
Ezekiel (16: 3), a Hittite mother. — '^ Fresh Light from the Ancient 
Monuments'' A. H. Sayce, M. A., pp. 87-89. London: The Religious 
Tract Society, 1890. 

Hittites, Facts Concerning. — Some years ago the so-called " higher 
critics " of the day used to refer to the Bible mentions of this people 
as one of the evidences of the imagined inaccuracies of the Bible. 
They themselves knew nothing about the Hittites, therefore the Hit- 
tites could not have existed! They have had to give up this point 
of attack. The Bible has been proved absolutely correct on this sub- 
ject as on others. The Hittite remains, with the quaint picture writing, 
" unknown hieroglyphics," as the description upon the monuments 
calls them, prove the existence of a great nation or group of nations. 
Other discoveries corroborate the Bible accounts, and show that the 
Hittites were a powerful people, [pp. 16, 17] . . . 

Many are the references to the Hittites in the Bible. 

Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah from " the people of the 
land, even the children of Heth," and from "Bphron the Hittite." 



ttOLY ROMAN EMPIRE 243 

Their city " Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt." 

They also founded Jerusalem, for we read, " Thus saith the Lord 
God unto Jerusalem, Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of 
Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite; " and 
it was " the land of the Hittites " that was promised to the children of 
Israel for an inheritance. 

Esau married " Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and 
Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, which were a grief of 
mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah." 

Ahimelech the Hittite and Uriah the Hittite were among the fol' 
lowers of King David. 

Toi, king of Hamath, a Hittite city, sent his son Joram with a 
present of "vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass; 
which also King David did dedicate unto the Lord, with the silver and 
gold that he had dedicated of all nations which he subdued." [p. 17] 

Solomon had horses and chariots brought out of Egypt for the 
kings of the Hittites; and " he loved many strange women," among 
them "women of the Hittites." Thus he disobeyed all the three com- 
mandments given to those who should be " set king " over Israel. " He 
shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to 
Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses. . . . Neither shall 
he multiply wives to himself, . . . neither shall he greatly multiply 
to himself silver and gold." 

"As for all the people that were left of the Hittites and (other 
nations) which were not of Israel, . . . them did Solomon make to 
pay tribute." 

The incident related in 2 Kings 7 shows that even later the 
Hittites were a powerful people, for when the Syrians besieged Sa- 
maria and the Lord interfered in the behalf of Israel, he " made the 
host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, 
even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the 
king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites and the 
kings of the Egyptians to come upon us." The Hittites and the Egyp- 
tians are thus put on an equality, and the Syrians were so smitten 
with terror that they fled precipitately, [p. 18] — " The Bible and the 
British Museum,'' Ada R. Hahershon, pp. 16-18^ London: Morgan and 
Scott, 1909. 

Holy Roman Empire, Meaning of. — The Holy Roman Empire, 
taking the name in the sense which it commonly bore in later centu- 
ries, as denoting the sovereignty of Germany and Italy vested in a 
Germanic prince, is the creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is 
true, as well as technically, it was a prolongation of the empire of 
Charles; and it rested (as will be shown in the sequel) upon ideas 
essentially the same as those which brought about the coronation of 
A. D. 800. But a revival is always more or less a revolution: the one 
hundred and fifty years that had passed since the death of Charles had 
brought with them changes which made Otto's position in Germany 
and Europe less commanding and less autocratic than his predecessor's. 
With narrower geographical limits, his empire had a less plausible claim 
to be the heir of Rome's universal dominion; and there were also dif- 
ferences in its inner character and structure sufficient to justify us in 
considering Otto (as he is usually considered by his countrymen) not 
a mere successor after an interregnum, but rather a second founder of 
the imperial throne in the West. — " The Holy Roman Empire,'' James 
Bryce, D. G. L., p. 80. London: Macmillan & Co., 1892. 

Holy Roman Empire, Charlemagne. — Charlemagne, or Charles 
the Great (Latin. Garolus Magnus), founder of the Holy Roman Empire, 



244 HOLY ROMAN EMPIBE 

was the son of Pepin, the first of the Carolingian line of Frankish kings, 
and grandson of Charles Martel, the powerful mayor of the palace under 
the last Merovingian king. He was born c. 742, perhaps at Aachen or 
Ingelheim; died at Aachen, Jan. 28, 814. With his father and younger 
brother, Karlman, he was anointed king of the Pranks by Pope Stephen 
II in 754. He ruled jointly with Karlman after Pepin's death in 768, 
and alone after Karlman's death in 771. He was crowned emperor of 
the Romans at Rome by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day, 800. In both 
civil and ecclesiastical matters Charlemagne carried out with consum- 
mate ability the policy of his father. — The New S chaff -Herzog Ency- 
clopedia of Religiows Knowledge, Vol. Ill, art. " Charlemagne,'^ p. 13. 

Holy Roman Empire, Dueation of. — The year 888 is the birth 
year of modern Europe. France, Germany, Italy, stood distinct as 
three separate units, with Burgundy and Lorraine as debatable lands, 
as they were destined to remain for centuries to come. If the concep- 
tion of empire was still to survive, the Pope must ultimately invite the 
ruler of the strongest of these three units to assume the imperial 
crown; and this was what happened when in 962 Pope John XII invited 
Otto I of Germany to renew once more the Roman Empire. As the 
imperial strength of the whole Frankish tribe had given them the em- 
pire in 800, so did the national strength of the East Frankish kingdom, 
now resting indeed on a Saxon rather than a Frankish basis, bring the 
empire to its ruler in 962. . . . Begun in 952, the acquisition was com- 
pleted ten years later; and all the conditions were now present for 
Otto's assumption of the imperial throne. He was crowned by John 
XII on Candlemas Day 962, and thus was begun the Holy Roman Em- 
pire, which lasted henceforth with a continuous life until 1806. — The 
Encyclopedia Britannica, Yol. IX, art. " Empire,'' pp. 351, 352, 11th ed. 

Holy Roman Empire, Papal Idea of. — As God, in the midst of 
the celestial hierarchy, ruled blessed spirits in Paradise, so the Pope, 
his vicar, raised above priests, bishops, metropolitans, reigned over the 
souls of mortal men below. But as God is Lord of earth as well as 
of heaven, so must he (the Imperator ccelestis) be represented by a sec- 
ond earthly viceroy, the emperor (Imperator terrenus), whose author- 
ity shall be of and for this present life. And as in this present world 
the soul cannot act save through the body, while yet the body is no 
more than an instrument and means for the soul's manifestation, so 
must there be a rule and care of men's bodies as well as of their souls, 
yet subordinated always to the well-being of that which is the purer 
and the more enduring. It is under the emblem of soul and body that 
the relation of the papal and imperial power is presented to us through- 
out the Middle Ages. — *' The Holy Roman Empire,*' James Bryce, 
D. C. L., pp. 104, 105. London: Macmillan & Co., 1892. 

Holy Roman Empire, The Double Aspect of. — Thus the Holy Ro- 
man Church and the Holy Roman Empire are one and the same thing, 
in two aspects; and Catholicism, the principle of the universal Chris- 
tian society, is also Romanism; that is, rests upon Rome as the origin 
and type of its universality; manifesting itself in a mystic dualism 
which corresponds to the two natures of its Founder. As divine and 
eternal, its head is the Pope, to whom souls have been intrusted; as 
human and temporal, the emperor, commissioned to rule men's bodies 
and acts.— Id., pp. 106, 107. 

Holy Roman Empire, Two Vicars in. — The German king was 
the emperor, the medieval head of the Holy Roman Empire, the "king 



HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE 245 

of the Romans." Some idea of what underlay the thought and its ex- 
pression may be had when one reads across Albert Diirer's portrait of 
Maximilian, '' Imperator Gccsar Divus Maximilianus Pius Felix Au- 
gustus," just as if he had been Trajan or Constantine. The phrase 
carries us back to the times when the Teutonic tribes swept down on 
the Roman possessions in Western Europe and took possession of them. 
They were barbarians with an unalterable reverence for the wider 
civilization of the great empire which they had conquered. They crept 
into the shell of the great empire and tried to assimilate its jurispru- 
dence and its religion. 

Hence it came to pass, in the earlier Middle Ages, as Mr. Freeman 
says, " The two great powers in Western Europe were the church and 
the empire, and the center of each, in imagination at least, was Rome. 
Both of these went on through the settlements of the German nations, 
and both in a manner drew new powers from the change of things. 
Men believed more than ever that Rome was the lawful and natural 
center of the world. For it was held that there were of divine right 
two vicars of God upon earth, the Roman emperor, his vicar in tem- 
poral things, and the Roman bishop, his vicar in spiritual things." 
This belief did not interfere with the existence either of separate com- 
monwealths, principalities, or of national churches. But it was held 
that the Roman emperor, who was the lord of the world, was of right 
the head of all temporal states, and the Roman bishop, the Pope, was 
the head of all the churches. — " A History of the Reformation," Thomas 
M. Lindsay, M. A., D. D., pp. 31, 32. New York: Charles 8cril)ner's Sons, 
1906. 

Note. — There is in the Church of the Lateran at Rome a ninth-century 
mosaic in which Pope Leo III and the emperor Charlemagne are represented as 
kneeling at the feet of St. Peter, the Pope on Peter's right hand, the emperor 
on his left, in which position the saint gives to Leo the stole of the bishop, 
signifying spiritual power, and to Charlemagne the banner of Rome, the symbol 
of temporal or political power. For a printed miniature of this noted work of 
art, see Myers' " Mediaeval and Modern History," edition 1905, p. 112. — Eds. 

Holy Roman Empire, A Turning Point in Medieval History. — 
This alliance between the most powerful representative of the Germanic 
world and the leader of Roman Christendom in the West, was one of the 
most eventful coalitions in the history of Europe. It was the event upon 
which all medieval history turned. It created a new political organiza- 
tion in Western Europe with the Pope and German emperor at the head. 
For centuries, it affected every institution in Western Europe. After 
Pepin, each new pope sent a delegation with the key and flag of Rome 
and the key of St. Peter's tomb to the Frankish rulers for confirmation 
of the election and to give the king the oath of allegiance. Thus, the 
strongest Western king assumed the same prerogative over the church 
which the Eastern emperor had exercised. — " The Rise of the Mediwval 
Church," Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph. D., Litt. D., pp. 306, 307. New 
York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1909. 

Holy Roman Empire, Its Influence upon the Relation Between 
Church and State. — While the idea of a holy empire was influencing 
both the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of society, it did not fail 
to affect the mutual relations of the two. Though it may seem para- 
doxical to say so, that idea, in itself so grand and inspiring, could only 
be realized as long as it was imperfect: two rival authorities intrench- 
ing on each other's province could only exist side by side when the reins 
of all authority hung loosely. But when society became more settled 
and better regulated, one of the two rival powers must stand, and the 
other must fall. The idea itself was clung to with extreme tenacity for 



246 HUMANISTS 

more than two centuries, until men had come to perceive that the popes, 
by encroaching on civil matters, were undermining the foundations of 
all settled political government. When Philip of France wrote to Boni- 
face VIII, " Render to Caesar the things that are Cassar's, and to God 
the things that are God's," he exposed the untenableness of the idea 
of the ecclesiastical state; but before that blow was dealt it had given 
rise to many an internal struggle. 

Such was that struggle in which the two heads of the holy empire, 
the Pope and the emperor, were brought into collision with each other. 
The religious character of the emperor gave him a religious sanction 
for interfering in matters connected with the Papacy, and thus popes 
in the imperial interests were raised up to dispute the see of Rome 
with popes in the Roman interest. On the other hand, the Pope, owing 
to his relations to the world, had reasonable grounds for interfering 
in the affairs of the empire, and on more than one occasion set up a 
rival emperor, when his claims to authority had been denied by those 
in power. 

For more than a century — from the decree of Nicolas II to the 
decree of Alexander III — the Papacy was disturbed by antipopes, 
Honorius II, Clement III, Gregory VIII, Victor IV, Paschal III being 
set up and supported by the emperors Henry IV, Henry V, and Frederic 
Barbarossa. For nearly two centuries — from the time of Henry IV to 
the fall of the House of Hohenstauf en — the empire was distracted by 
rival emperors, Rudolph of Swabia, Conrad and Henry, Henry Raspe, 
William of Holland — emperors whom the popes had approved, and 
whom they had put forward in their own interests. The antipopes and 
the rival emperors were counterparts to each other. Both were a con- 
sequence which might have been easily anticipated from the attempt 
to realize the idea of the holy empire. — " The See of Rome in tlie 
Middle Ages," Rev. Oswald J. Reichel, B. G. L., M. A., pp. 300-302. 
London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1870. 

Humanists, Equivalent of Classicists in Luther's Time. — The 
exact point in time when the term " Humanist " was first adopted, 
escapes our knowledge. It is, however, quite certain that Italy and the 
readoption of Latin letters as the staple of human culture were respon- 
sible for the name of Humanists. Literw humaniores was an expression 
coined in conscious contrast, at the beginning of the movement, into 
current medieval learning, to the end that these " letters," i. e., sub- 
stantially the classic literature of Rome and the imitation and repro- 
duction of its literary forms in the new learning, might stand by them- 
selves as over against the Literw sacrce of scholasticism. In the time 
of Ariosto, Erasmus, and Luther's beginnings, the term umanista was in 
effect an equivalent to the terms " classicist " or " classical scholar." , . . 

Petrarch is the pathfinder as well as the exemplar of the new 
movement. He idealized the classical world, he read into such Latin 
letters as he had, or extracted as he could, profound and surpassing 
verities. His classicist consciousness and his Christian consciousness 
are revealed in his writings like two streams that do not intermingle 
though they flow in the same bed. The experiences of life constantly 
evoke in him classic parallels, reminiscences, associations, [p. 401] . . . 

The Italian Humanists were not concerned in the reformatory 
movements of the fifteenth century. They drifted into a palpable pagan- 
ism or semipaganism, curiously illustrated in the verse, e. g., of Poli- 
tian, especially his Greek verse, and of him even the lax Giovio writes: 
" He was a man of unseemly morals." They all more or less emphasized 
" vera virUis," by which they meant " true excellence," the self-wrought 
development of human faculties and powers. Still they knew how to 



IDOLATRY, NATURE OF 247 

maintain friendly relations with those higher clerics who had resources 
with which to patronize the new learning. ... As they greatly exceeded 
the corruption of the clergy in their own conduct, they could not take 
any practical interest in any spiritual or theological reformation. . , . 
At best a mild deism or pantheism may be perceived in their more 
serious writings. — The New Schaif-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, Yol. Y, art. ''Humanism" pp. 401, 402. 

Idolatry, Natuee of. — Idolatry is not, as some have supposed, the 
natural outcome of the pious ignorance of men in a state of barbarism, 
nor are its different forms the varied inventions of different nations 
and peoples separated from each other. All are similar in nature and 
origin, and emanated from the most highly civilized nation of antiquity. 
For although there is good reason for believing that idolatry first orig- 
inated in antediluvian times, and brought upon the world the judgment 
of the deluge, yet it arose again, after that event, with the Chaldeans 
of ancient Babylon, whose mighty works and wisdom were famed 
throughout antiquity. " Babylon," says the prophet, " hath been a 
golden cup in the hand of the Lord to make all the earth drunken. 
The nations have drunken thereof; therefore are the nations mad." 

Although the gods and goddesses of the heathen were so numerous, 
yet " all," says Faber, " as we are repeatedly informed by the ancient 
mythological writers, are ultimately one and the same person." Strictly 
speaking, they are resolved into one or other of a Trinity^ composed of 
a Father, Mother, and Son, the various attributes of whom were per- 
sonified and worshiped under different titles, and known under dif- 
ferent names in different nations. — " The True Christ and the False 
Christ" J. Gurnier, Yol. II, pp. 4, 5. London: George Allen, 1900. 

Moreover, although it was taught that they were one and the same 
god, yet, as even the prince of the demons is neither omniscient nor 
omnipresent, it was necessary that he should be represented at the in- 
numerable temples and shrines, and in the multitude of idols all over 
the world, by a host of subordinate spirits, the demons over whom he 
was prince, who personated the various gods. — Id., pp. 20. 21. 

It will be noticed that the worship of the pagan gods was always 
carried on through their idols or images, and that these idols being the 
characteristic and apparently an inseparable feature of that worship, 
it had the appearance of being the worship of idols, and is spoken of 
as " idolatry." The reason of this has already been alluded to. The 
demon gods were neither omniscient nor omnipresent, and to have in- 
voked their aid at all times and in all places would therefore have 
been useless. Hence the necessity for some local habitation for them, 
such as an image, temple, grove, or sacred symbol, which when conse- 
crated by the priestly adept who had already established communica- 
tion with them, might become the special abode of some one spirit, who 
would thus be ever at hand to influence and delude those who sought 
his aid. — Id., pp. 22, 23. 

Idolatry (Gr. eldcaXoXarpia [eidololatrial) etymologically denotes di- 
vine worship given to an image, but its significance has been extended 
to all divine worship given to any one or anything but the true God. — 
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Yol. YII, art. " Idolatry." p. 636. 

Idolatry, Unspibitual Rites of. — The pagan rites were regarded 
as a service done to the Deity, as acts of homage which satisfied his 
demands and appeased his anger, while they were rites also which were 



248 IDOLATRY, BABYLONIAN 

supposed to purify the souls, and obtain pardon for the sins of the 
worshipers. But there was nothing spiritual in them, nothing which 
could call forth a single spiritual thought, or produce the slightest 
moral change, save the blinding and satisfaction of the conscience of 
the sinner. Holy water purified him; the sacrifice of the round cake 
atoned for his sins; charms, relics, and holy signs preserved him from 
danger; righteousness consisted of ritual acts and ordinances, penances 
and self-mortifications; auguries and oracles revealed the will of the 
gods, whom he worshiped through their images; while the priesthood 
stood in the place of God to him, both as mediators between the gods 
and men, and as the sole channel through which all spiritual effects 
were to be obtained. 

Thus the mind and affections, and entire dependence of the pagan, 
were confined to that which was earthly, material, and created, and this, 
as the apostle implies, is the whole spirit and principle of idolatry. It 
is " worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator," seek- 
ing spirit from matter, life from that which is without life, and placing 
the dependence due to God on men and created things; by which it both 
satisfied and deadened the conscience, and shut out from the mind all 
thoughts of spiritual things and true righteousness. — " The True Christ 
and the False Christ," J. Gurnier, Vol, II, pp. 37, 38. London: George 
Allen, 1900. 

Idolatry, Babylonian. — The pronounced idolatry prevalent In 
Babylon under the later kings, which Scripture sets forth in such strong 
terms (Jer. 50: 2, 38; 51: 17, 47, 52; Dan. 5:4), scarcely requires the 
confirmation which is lent to it by the inscriptions and by profane 
writers. Idolatrous systems had possession of all Western Asia at the 
time, and the Babylonian idolatry was not of a much grosser type than 
the Assyrian, the Syrian, or the Phoenician. But it is perhaps worthy 
of remark that the particular phase of the religion which the great 
Hebrew prophets set forth, is exactly that found by the remains to have 
characterized the later empire. In the works of these writers three 
Babylonian gods only are particularized by name, — Bel, Nebo, Mero- 
dach, — and in the monuments of the period these three deities are 
exactly those which obtain the most frequent mention and hold the 
most prominent place. The kings of the later empire, with a single 
exception, had names which placed them under the protection of one or 
other of these three; and their inscriptions show that to these three 
they paid, at any rate, especial honor. Merodach holds the first place 
in the memorials of their reigns left by Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglis- 
sar; Bel and Nebo bear off the palm in the inscriptions of Nabonidus. 
While " the great gods " obtain occasional but scanty notice, as " the 
holy gods" do in the book of Daniel (Dan. 4: 8, 9); Bel, Nebo, and 
Merodach alone occur frequently, alone seem to be viewed, not as local, 
but as great national deities, alone engage the thoughts and receive the 
adoration of the nation. — " Egypt and Babylon,'' George Bawlinson, 
M. A., pp. 108, 104. New York: John B. Alden, 1885. 

Idolatry, Phcenician Dagon. — According to the general idea, the 
Phoenician Dagon was a fish god, having the form described by Berosus, 
and represented so often in the Assyrian sculptures — "a form resem- 
bling that of a fish, but with a human head growing below the fish's, and 
with human feet growing alongside of the fish's tail and coming out 
from it." Fish are common emblems upon the Phoenician coins; and 
the word " Dagon " is possibly derived from dag, " a fish," so that the 
temptation to identify the deity with the striking form revealed to us 
by the Ninevite sculptures is no doubt considerable. It ought, however, 



IDOLATRY, HISTORY OF 249 

to be borne in mind that there is nothing in the Scriptural description 
of the Philistine Dagon to suggest the idea that the image which fell on 
its face before the ark of the covenant had in any respect the form of 
a fish. Nor do the Assyrian monuments connect the name of Dagon, 
which they certainly contain, with the fish deity whose image they pre- 
sent. That deity is Nin or Ninus. Altogether, therefore, it must be 
pronounced exceedingly doubtful whether the popular idea has any truth 
at all in it; or whether we ought not to revert to the view put forward 
by Philo, that the Phoenician Dagon was a " corn god," and presided 
over agriculture. — " Tlie Religions of the Ancient World,'' George Raw- 
linson, M. A., p. 108. New York: Hurst & Co. 

Idolatry, History of, Among the Jews. — Idolatry, strictly speak- 
ing, denotes the worship of deity in a visible form, whether the images 
to which homage is paid are symbolical representations of the true God 
or of the false divinities which have been made the objects of worship 
in his stead. 

History of Idolatry Among the Jews. — The first undoubted allusion 
to idolatry or idolatrous customs in the Bible is in the account of 
Rachel's stealing her father's teraphim. Gen. 31: 19. During their long 
residence in Egypt the Israelites defiled themselves with the idols of 
the land, and it was long before the taint was removed. Joshua 24: 14; 
Eze. 20: 7. In the wilderness they clamored for some visible shape in 
which they might worship the God who had brought them out of Egypt 
(Exodus 32), until Aaron made the calf, the embodiment of Apis, and 
emblem of the productive power of nature. During the lives of Joshua 
and the elders who outlived him they kept true to their allegiance; but 
the generation following, who knew not Jehovah nor the works he had 
done for Israel, swerved from the plain path of their fathers, and were 
caught in the toils of the foreigner. Judges 2. From this time forth 
their history becomes little more than a chronicle of the inevitable 
sequence of offense and punishment"! Judges 2: 12, 14. By turns each 
conquering nation strove to establish the worship of its national god. 

In later times the practice of secret idolatry was carried to greater 
lengths. Images were set up on the corn floors, in the wine vats, and 
behind the doors of private houses (Isa. 57: 8; Hosea 9:1, 2); and to 
check this tendency the statute in Deuteronomy 27: 15 was originally 
promulgated. Under Samuel's administration idolatry was publicly re- 
nounced (1 Sam. 7: 3-6); but in the reign of Solomon all this was for- 
gotten, even Solomon's own heart being turned after other gods. 1 
Kings 11: 14. Rehoboam perpetuated the worst features of Solomon's 
idolatry, 1 Kings 14: 22-24. . . . The successors of Jeroboam followed 
in his steps, till Ahab. The conquest of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser 
was for them the last scene of the drama of abominations which had 
been enacted uninterruptedly for upwards of 250 years. Under Heze- 
kiah a great reform was inaugurated, that was not confined to Judah 
and Benjamin, but spread throughout Ephraim and Manasseh (2 Chron. 
31: 1), and to all external appearance idolatry was extirpated. 

But the reform extended little below the surface. Isa. 29: 13. With 
the death of Josiah ended the last effort to revive among the people a 
purer ritual, if not a purer faith. The lamp of David, which had long 
shed but a struggling ray, flickered for a while and then went out in 
the darkness of Babylonian captivity. Though the conquests of Alex- 
ander caused Greek influence to be felt, yet after the captivity a better 
condition of things prevailed, and the Jews never again fell into idolatry. 
— "A Dictionary of the Bible,'' William Smith, LL. D., pp. 262, 263. 
Teacher's edition. Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, copyright 1884. 



250 IDOLATRY, TRANSFER OF, TO ROME 

Idolatry, Roman, The Two Madonnas. — The Madonna of Rome, 
then, is just the Madonna of Babylon. The " Queen of Heaven " in the 
one system is the same as the " Queen of Heaven " in the other. The 
goddess worshiped in Babylon and Egypt as the tabernacle or habitation 
of God, is identical with her who, under the name of Mary, is called by 
Rome " The house consecrated to God," " the awful dwelling place," 
" the mansion of God," the " tabernacle of the Holy Ghost," the " temple 
of the Trinity." — " The Two Babylons,'' Rev. Alexander Hislop, p. 83, 
7th edition. London: 8. W. Partridge & Co. 

Idolatry, Tbansfer of, from Babylon to Rome. — In common with 
all the earth, Rome at a very early prehistoric period, had drunk deep of 
Babylon's " golden cup." But above and beyond all other nations, it 
had had a connection with the idolatry of Babylon that put it in a po- 
sition peculiar and alone. Long before the days of Romulus, a repre- 
sentative of the Babylonian Messiah, called by his name, had fixed his 
temple as a god, and his palace as a king, on one of these very heights 
which came to he included within the walls of that city which Remus 
and his brother were destined to found. On the Capitoline hill, so famed 
in after-days as the great high place of Roman worship, Saturnia, or the 
city of Saturn, the great Chaldean god, had in the days of dim and dis- 
tant antiquity been erected. Some revolution had then taken place, the 
graven images of Babylon had been abolished, the erecting of any idol 
had been sternly prohibited, and when the twin founders of the now 
world-renowned city reared its humble walls, the city and the palace 
of their Babylonian predecessor had long lain in ruins. The ruined 
state of this sacred city, even in the remote age of Evander, is alluded 
to by Virgil. Referring to the time when ^neas is said to have visited 
that ancient Italian king, thus he speaks: 

" Then saw two heaps of ruins; once they stood 

Two stately towns on either side the flood; 

Saturnia and Janicul§,'s remains; 

And either place the founder's name retains." 
The deadly wound, however, thus given to the Chaldean system, was 
destined to be healed. A colony of Etruscans, earnestly attached to the 
Chaldean idolatry, had migrated, some say from Asia Minor, others 
from Greece, and settled in the immediate neighborhood of Rome. They 
were ultimately incorporated in the Roman state, but long before this 
political union took place they exercised the most powerful influence on 
the religion of the Romans. Prom the very first their skill in augury, 
soothsaying, and all science, real or pretended, that the augurs or sooth- 
sayers monopolized, made the Romans look up to them with respect. 
It is admitted on all hands that the Romans derived their knowledge 
of augury, which occupied so prominent a place in every public transac- 
tion in which they engaged, chiefiy from the Tuscans, that is, the people 
of Etruria, and at first none but natives of that country were permitted 
to exercise the office of a Haruspex, which had respect to all the rites 
essentially involved in sacrifice. Wars and disputes arose between 
Rome and the Etruscans; but still the highest of the noble youths of 
Rome were sent to Etruria to be instructed in the sacred science which 
flourished there. The consequence was, that under the influence of men 
whose minds were molded by those who clung to the ancient idol wor- 
ship, the Romans were brought back again to much of that idolatry 
which they had formerly repudiated and cast off. Though Numa, there- 
fore, in setting up his religious system, so far deferred to the prevailing 
feeling of his day and forbade image worship, yet. in consequence of the 
alliance subsisting between Rome and Etruria in sacred things, matters 
were put in train for the ultimate subversion of that prohibition. The 



roOLATRY, TRANSFER OF, TO ROME 251 

college of pontiffs, of which he laid the foundation, in process of time 
came to be substantially an Etruscan college, and the sovereign pontiff 
that presided over that college, and that controlled all the public and 
private religious rites of the Roman people in all essential respects, 
became in spirit and in practice an Etruscan pontiff. 

Still the sovereign pontiff of Rome, even after the Etruscan idolatry- 
was absorbed into the Roman system, was only an offshoot from the 
grand original Babylonian system. He was a devoted worshiper of the 
Babylonian god; but he was not the legitimate representative of that 
god. The true legitimate Babylonian pontiff had his seat beyond the 
bounds of the Roman Empire. That seat, after the death of Belshazzar, 
and the expulsion of the Chaldean priesthood from Babylon by the Medo- 
Persian kings, was at Pergamos, where afterward was one of the seven 
churches of Asia. There, in consequence, for many centuries was 
"Satan's seat." Rev. 2: 13. There, under favor of the deified kings of 
Pergamos, was his favorite abode, there was the worship of ^sculapius, 
under .the form of the serpent, celebrated with frantic orgie? and ex- 
cesses, that elsewhere were kept under some measure of restraint. At 
first, the Roman Pontiff had no immediate connection with Pergamos 
and the hierarchy there; yet, in course of time, the pontificate of Rome 
and the pontificate of Pergamos came to be identified. Pergamos itself 
became part and parcel of the Roman Empire, when Attains III, the 
last of its kings, at his death, left by will all his dominions to the 
Roman people, b. c. 133. 

For some time after the kingdom of Pergamos was merged in the 
Roman dominions, there was no one who could set himself openly and 
advisedly to lay claim to all the dignity inherent in the old title of the 
kings of Pergamos. The original powers even of the Roman pontiffs 
seem to have been by that time abridged, but when Julius Caesar, who 
had previously been elected Pontifex Maximus, became also, as emperor, 
the supreme civil ruler of the Romans, then, as head of the Roman 
state and head of the Roman religion, all the powers and functions of 
the true legitimate Babylonian pontiff were supremelj'^ vested in him, 
and he found himself in a position to assert these powers. Then he 
seems to have laid claim to the divine dignity of Attains, as well as the 
kingdom that Attains had bequeathed to the Romans, as centering in 
himself; for his well-known watchword, " Venus Genetrix,'" which 
meant that Venus was the mother of the Julian race, appears to have 
been intended to make him " the son " of the great goddess, even as the 
" bull-horned " Attains had been regarded. Then, on certain occasions, 
in the exercise of his high pontifical office, he appeared of course in all 
the pomp of the Babylonian costume, as Belshazzar himself might have 
done, in robes of scarlet, with the crosier of Nimrod in his hand, wear- 
ing the miter of Dagon, and bearing the keys of Janus and Cybele. 

Thus did matters continue, as already stated, even under so-called 
Christian emperors; who, as a salve to their consciences, appointed a 
heathen as their substitute in the performance of the more directly idol- 
atrous functions of the pontificate (that substitute, however, acting in 
their name and by their authority), until the reign of Gratian, who, as 
shown by Gibbon, was the first that refused to be arrayed in the idola- 
trous pontifical attire or to act as Pontifex. 

Now, from all this it is evident that when paganism in the Roman 
Empire was abolished, when the office of Pontifex Maximus was sup- 
pressed, and all the dignitaries of paganism were cast down from their 
seats of influence and of power, which they had still been allowed in 
some measure to retain, this was not merely the casting down of the 
fiery dragon of Rome, but the casting down of the fiery dragon of 
Babylon. It was just the enacting over again, in a symbolical sense, 



252 IDOLATRY, TRANSFER OF, TO ROME 

upon the true and sole legitimate successor of Nimrod, what had taken 
place upon himself, when the greatness of his downfall gave rise to the 
exclamation, " How art thou fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the 
morning!" — "' TTie Tioo Babylons,'' Rev. Alexander Hislop, pp. 239-242, 
7th edition. London: 8. W. Partridge d Co. 

Idolatry Transferred from Babylon to Rome. — On the overthrow 
of Babylon by the Persians, who nourished a traditional hatred for its 
idolatry, the Chaldean priesthood fled to Pergamos in Asia Minor, and 
made it the headquarters of their religion. Hence Christ in his charge 
to the church in that city speaks of it as being " where Satan's seat is." 
The last pontiff king of Pergamos was Attains IH, who at his death 
bequeathed his dominions and authority to the Roman people, 133 b. c, 
and from that time the two lines of Pontifex Maximus were merged in 
the Roman one. . . . 

But just as pagan Rome was the true offspring and successor of 
Babylon, so is papal Rome the true offspring and successor of pagan 
Rome. When paganism was nominally abolished in the Roman Empire, 
the head of the pagan hierarchy was also suppressed. Some of the 
Christian emperors did indeed accept the title of Pontifex Maximus, 
while others, refusing it themselves, appointed a pagan priest, until the 
reign of Gratian, who, refusing to do either, abolished the office 376 a. d. 
Two years afterward, however, fearing that religion might become dis- 
organized, he offered the title and office to Damasus, Bishop of Rome. 
. . . This bishop, less scrupulous than the emperor, accepted the office, 
and from that time until now the title has been held by the popes of 
Rome, from whom, and through whom, the whole hierarchy of Western 
Christendom have received their ordination. So also the honors and 
powers attached to the title, the dominion of the civilized world, pre- 
viously wielded by the pontiff emperors of pagan Rome, passed to the 
pontiffs and hierarchy of papal Rome, who for centuries imposed their 
will upon kings, and held the nations in thraldom. . . . 

Hence we see that there was good reason for entitling the seven- 
hilled city of papal Rome " Babylon Roma " or " Babylon the Great." 
Moreover, although the actual city of Rome is the center and seat of 
that vast organization which for centuries " ruled over the kings of the 
earth," and over "peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues," 
yet " the great city " includes all, in every place, who can claim to be 
its citizens, all who are subject to its laws and ordinances, who bow to 
its authority, or are morally identified with it. Just as the citizens of 
pagan Rome included multitudes who had never seen Rome but who 
claimed to be its citizens, bowed to its laws and authority, and were 
entitled to its privileges. — " The True Christ and the False Christ," J. 
Gamier, Vol. II, pp. 94-96. London: George Allen, 1900. 

Idolatry, Modern. — The image worshipers in Christianity allege 
that the whole worship is merely representative and symbolical, ex- 
hibiting to them an invisible Deity in visible types and images; so that 
every image has reference to its prototype, and no virtue is inherent 
in the image or in its material substance. So said all the enlight- 
ened among the heathen, and yet the Christian apologists convicted 
them of idolatry, notwithstanding all the refinements of their relative 
worship, [p. 220] . . . 

But it is said, as an apology for this semipagan system, that 
" images are laymen's books," and that the gospel is read by the un- 
learned in these visible types and representations of its history and 
founders. If this be so, the whole system must pass away before the 
progress of education; and had the work of instruction been earlier 



roOLATRY, IMAGES 253 

and more successful, must have been obsolete long since. Yet we 
cannot but remember that the same apology was advanced in behalf 
of the idol worship of heathenism. " Images of this kind," as the 
heathen advocate alleges in St. Athanasius, " are like literary ele- 
ments i&cnrep ypafifiaTa [liosper grammato]) to men; which when they 
meet with, they are able to realize the conception of God " ( yiviba-Keip 
irepi TTjs Tov deov KaTa\-f]\pe(as [ginoskein peri tes tou theou katalepseds'\ ) . 
Would that the Church of Rome had gone no further even than this 
in its imitation, and in a certain sense revival, of the idolatry of the 
Gentile world! 

But here another stage is given us by St. Athanasius, who shows 
that images were regarded by the heathens as means of " discovering 
to them the divine will, that they might acquire the knowledge of 
sacred things through angelic apparitions." No one who is even super- 
ficially acquainted with the image worship of the modern Church of 
Rome, with its wonder-working shrines and votive offerings and oracles, 
can fail to confess how faithfully she has reproduced this worst feature 
of heathen idolatry, and how fatally she clings to those idols from 
which once she turned in order to serve the living God. — ''Romanism: 
A Doctrinal and Historical Examination of the Creed of Pope Pius IV " 
Rev. Robert Charles Jenkins, M. A., pp. 220-222. London: The Religious 
Tract Society. 

Idolatry, Venekation of Images Enjoined. — The holy synod en- 
joins on all bishops and others who sustain the office and charge of 
teaching that . . . they especially instruct the faithful diligently con- 
cerning the intercession and invocation of saints; the honor (paid) to 
relics; and the legitimate use of images. . . . Moreover, that the images 
of Christ, of the virgin mother of God, and of the other saints, are to 
be had and to be retained particularly in temples, and that due honor 
and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity or virtue 
is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshiped; 
or that anything is to be asked of them; or that trust is to be reposed 
in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed their hope in 
idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the 
prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the 
images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and 
prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints whose 
similitude they bear; as, by the decrees of councils, and especially the 
second Synod of Nicsea, has been defined against the opponents of 
images. — ''Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,'' pp. 167-169. New York: The 
Devin-Adair Company, 1912. 

Idolatry, A Plain Parallel. — Romanism is the same perversion of 
Christianity that paganism was of patriarchal truth, and its false 
Christ is morally identical with the false Christ of paganism. — " The 
True Christ and the False Christ,'* J. Gamier, Vol. II, p. 104. London: 
George Allen, 1900. 

Idolatry, Rome Guilty of. — On four counts at least Rome can be 
proved guilty of idolatry without any difficulty: 

She worships graven and molten images, and to justify the idolatry 
frequently omits the second commandment in her catechisms, and di- 
vides the tenth into two, in order to make up the number. 

She worships dead men and women, and angels. 

She worships relics, especially pieces of the cross, to which she 
gives the highest kind of worship, called latria. 

She worships a piece of bread in the mass, in that sacrament which 
the Church of England, in her Thirty-ninth Article, designates as " a 
blasphemous fable," 



254 IDOLATRY, PROTEST AGAINST 

On these four counts, then, without going further, we maintain that 
Rome is guilty of idolatry. — ''Rome: Pagan and Papal" Mourant Brock, 
M. A., p. 33. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 188S. 

Idolatry, Protest of the Reformers Against. — The protest of the 
Reformers was directed, not only against. the worship of the Virgin 
and saints, hut against the priestly assumptions of the clergy and the 
principle of sacramental eflBcacy, and it was the protest against the 
latter which evoked the chief fury of their persecutors. Their protest, 
in short, was against the principle of Catholicism, which is idolatry, 
or the substitution of material and created things for Christ. For 
whether it is the mediation of the Virgin and saints, or a trust in the 
guidance of the priesthood and in the spiritual efficacy of the sacra- 
ments administered hy them, or a belief in the virtue of holy water, 
holy oil, images, crucifixes, relics, and other material symbols and 
ritual acts, they one and all combine to take the place of Christ to 
the sinner, and keep him from going to Him for life. 

Instead of these things, the Reformers asserted that salvation was 
dependent on Christ alone, and that the sinner, instead of assuming 
himself to be a Christian in virtue of the rite of baptism, could only 
become so by a true, living, and constant faith in Christ; and that 
the Word of God and the Spirit of God, and not the priesthood, were 
the only guide to the truth. — " The True Christ and the False Christ'' 
J. Gamier, Vol. II, p. 140. London: George Allen, 1900. 

Idolatry, of the Church of Rome. — The awful idolatry of the 
Church of Rome, as it respects the worship of the Virgin Mary, needs 
no other proof than what is afforded by a book entitled, " The Glories 
of Mary," written in Italian, by Alphonsus de Liguori, and translated 
into English and published with the formal approval of Cardinal Wise- 
man. I will give a few quotations from the edition of 1852. 

Of Mary it is said, that " she opens the abyss of the mercy of God 
to whomsoever she wills, when she wills, and as she wills " (p. 16), and 
" that the Son is under great obligation to her for having given him 
his humanity" (p. 17). "We say that Mary is the mediatress of 
grace," " Whatever graces we receive, they come to us through her in- 
tercession." " There is certainly nothing contrary to faith in this, 
but the reverse; it is quite in accordance with the sentiments of the 
church, which in its public and approved prayers teaches us continually 
to have recourse to this divine mother, and to invoke her as the * health 
of the weak, the refuge of sinners, the help of Christians, and as our 
life and hope'" (pp. 124, 125). "Shall we scruple to ask her to save 
us, when ' the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through 
Mary'?" (p. 135). 

Of the prayers to be addressed to her, the following may serve as 
a specimen: "I am thine; save me. Accept me, O Mary, for thine 
own, and as thine take charge of my salvation" (pp. 20, 21). "Thou 
hast all power to change hearts, take thou mine and change it " (p. 42). 
" Behold, O Mother of my God, my only hope, Mary, behold at thy feet 
a miserable sinner, who asks thee for mercy. Thou art proclaimed and 
called by the whole church and by all the faithful the refuge of sinners. 
Thou art consequently my refuge, thou hast to save me. ... I present 
thee, O my Mother, the sufferings of Jesus" (p. 58). "Thou art the 
Queen of heaven, the Mistress of the universe" (p. 77). — "Fulfilled 
Prophecy," Rev. W. Goode, D. D., F. 8. A., p. 197, M edition. London: 
James Nishet d Co., 1891. 

Idolatry, The Douat Version of Ex. 20: 5, — It is worth remarking 
that Roman Catholics, who translate the passage in Exodus 20: 5, 



IDOLATRY IN THE CHURCH 255 

" Thou Shalt not adore them," sometimes complain that the Authorized 
Version, " Thou shalt not bow down to them," is a misleading render- 
ing, and goes too far. As a fact, the Hebrew verb shachah, here found, 
strictly means to bow or prostrate one's self, and only secondarily 
comes to mean worship or adoration, and is translated bowed down in 
the Douai Version of Genesis 42: 6, speaking of Joseph's brethren's 
obeisance toward him. — " Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church 
of Rome," Richard Frederick Littledale, LL. D., D. G. L., p. 39, note. 

Idolatry, Roman Catholic View of, and Defense of Adoration of 
Images. — Idolatry . . . denotes divine worship given ... to any one or 
anything but the true God. . . . 

An essential difference exists between idolatry and the veneration 
of images practised in the Catholic Church, viz., that while the idolater 
credits the image he reverences with divinity or divine powers, the 
Catholic knows " that in images there is no divinity or virtue on account 
of which they are to be worshiped, that no petitions can be addressed to 
them, and that no trust is to be placed in them, . . . that the honor 
which is given to them is referred to the objects (prototypa) which they 
represent, so that through the images which we kiss, and before which 
we uncover our heads and kneel, we adore Christ and venerate the 
saints whose likenesses they are." (Cone. Trid., Sess. XXV, " de invo- 
catione Sanctorum"). 

Considered in itself, idolatry is the greatest of mortal sins. For it 
is ... a rebellious setting up of a creature on the throne that belongs 
to Him alone. Even the simulation of idolatry, in order to escape death 
during persecution, is a mortal sin, because of the pernicious falsehood 
it involves and the scandal it causes. — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 
VII, art. "Idolatry," p. 636. 

Idolatry, The Gigantic Sin. — I hold that no reader of the Bible 
can be unaware of the fact that the gigantic sin which looms out in 
gloomiest form throughout the sacred pages is that of idolatry or 
apostasy from the true worship of the Almighty. There are only two 
kinds of worship, true and false. The true worship is to be found in 
the Bible, and there alone; false worship is to be found in all systems 
of so-called religion not founded on God's Word, and even in infidelity 
itself. The heart-infidel — if there be such a person — is a false 
worshiper and an idolater of self. He is his own god; and a false god 
he is. Apostasy, then, and idolatry — for they are in many cases in- 
separable from each other — are the great objects of prophetic denuncia- 
tion and apostolic warning. — " Rome, Antichrist, and the Papacy," 
Edward Harper, p. 15. London: Protestant Printing and Publishing 
Company. 

Images, Excluded from Chltjches in First Centuries. — The use 
<of images was originally foreign to the worship and excluded from the 
(Churches of the Christians; and so in general, it continued to be in this 
period. — " General History of the Christian Religion and Church," Dr. 
August Neander, Vol. I, p. 397, Torry's translation. Edinburgh: T. & T. 
€larlc, 1847. 

Images, Worship of, Introduced in the Fourth Century. — The 
«arly Christian Fathers believed that painting and sculpture were for- 
iDidden by the Scriptures, and that they were therefore wicked arts; 
and, though the second Council of Nicea asserted that the use of images 
had always been adopted by the church, there are abundant facts to 
prove that the actual worship of them was not indulged in until the 



256 IMAGES, WORSHIP OB^ 

fourth century, when, on the occasion of its occurrence in Spain, it was 
condemned by the Council of Illiberis. During the fifth century the 
practice of introducing images into churches increased, and in the sixth 
it had become prevalent. The common people, who had never been able 
to comprehend doctrinal mysteries, found their religious wants satisfied 
in turning to these effigies. With singular obtuseness, they believed 
that the saint is present in his image, though hundreds of the same 
kind were in existence, each having an equal and exclusive right to the 
spiritual presence. The doctrine of invocation of departed saints, which 
assumed prominence in the fifth century, was greatly strengthened by 
these graphic forms. Pagan idolatry had reappeared. — " History of the 
Intellectual Development of Europe," John William Draper, M. D., 
LL. D., Vol. I, p. 414. New York: Harper & Brothers, copyright 1876. 

Images, Wokship of. — Next, let us take the worship of images 
and pictures. Here it must first be said (a) that the Roman Church in 
terms denies that any such act as can be strictly called worship is done 
to pictures and images, even by the most ignorant, since no one believes 
that these representations can see, hear, or help of themselves; (h) that 
there is no question as to the lawfulness of making some such images 
and representations, if noi intended to receive homage, as even the Jews 
had the brazen serpent, and the figures of the cherubim in the holy of 
holies, where, however, only 'one man ever saw them, and that only 
once a year; and the early Christians set up pictures of our Lord in the 
catacombs, still to be seen there. But, on the other hand, there is a 
very suspicious fact which meets us at the outset of the inquiry as to 
the actual Roman practice, as distinguished from any finespun theories 
in books, namely, that many Roman catechisms omit the second com- 
mandment, while no Roman catechism teaches that there is either dan- 
ger or sin in any making or using of images for religious honor, short 
of actual paganism. The point is . . . whether in practice one Roman 
Catholic in a million ever knows that image worship can be abused or 
sinful without virtual apostasy from Christianity. The Shorter Lu- 
theran Catechism cuts down the first and second commandments just 
in the same way as many Roman ones do; but, then, on the one hand, 
Lutherans have free access to the Bible in their own language, and, on 
the other, nothing of the nature of image worship has ever been prac- 
tised among them. 

Intelligent and shrewd heathens, when arguing in favor of idols, 
say exactly what Roman Catholic controversialists do in defense of 
their practice, namely, that they do not believe in any sentient power 
as residing in the mere stone, wood, or metal, of which their idols are 
made, but regard them as representing visibly certain attributes of 
Deity, to bring them home to the minds of worshipers; and that homage 
addressed to these idols on that ground is acceptable to the unseen 
spiritual Powers, who will listen to and answer prayers so made indi- 
rectly to themselves. — " Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of 
Rome,'' Richard Frederick Littledale, LL. D., D. G. L., pp. 37-39. London: 
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1905. 

Immaculate Conception, The Dogma Defined. — Since we have 
never ceased in humility and fasting to offer up our prayers and those 
of the church to God the Father through his Son, that he might deign 
to direct and confirm our mind by the power of the Holy Ghost, after 
imploring the protection of the whole celestial court, and after invoking 
on our knees the Holy Ghost the Paraclete, under his inspiration we 
pronounce, declare, and define, unto the glory of the holy and indivisible 
Trinity, the honor and ornament of the Holy Virgin, the mother of God, 



IMMACUIiATE CONCEPTION 257 

for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian 
religion by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and the blessed 
apostles Peter and Paul, and in our own authority, that the doctrine 
which holds the Blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first mo- 
ment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty 
God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Saviour of mankind, 
preserved free from all stain of original sin, was revealed by God, and 
is, therefore, to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful. 
Therefore, if some should presume to think in their hearts otherwise 
than we have defined (which God forbid), they shall know and thor- 
oughly understand that they are by their own judgment condemned, 
have made shipwreck concerning the faith, and fallen away from the 
unity of the church; and, moreover, that they by this very act subject 
themselves to the penalties ordained by law, if by word, or writing, or 
any other external means, they dare to signify what they think in their 
hearts. — Extract from the Bull "■ Ineffahilis Deus," of Pope Pius IX, Dec, 
8, 1854, promulgating the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the 
Virgin Mary; cited in " Dogmatic Canons and Decrees," pp. 183, 184. 
New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912. 

Immaculate Conception, Its Significance. — Who can believe that, 
it being in the power of God the Son to prepare a spotless holy temple 
wherein to dwell incarnate for nine months, he preferred to have one 
which had been first profaned by the stain of original sin? 

Who can imagine that God, who could become incarnate by prepar- 
ing for himself a mother immaculate in her conception, should have 
preferred a mother who had first been stained by sin and once in the 
power and slavery of Satan? 

To admit such suppositions is shocking to Christian minds. ... It 
being in the power of God to preserve Mary unstained from original sin, 
there is every reason to believe that he did it. God is able; therefore 
he did it. — " Catholic Belief,'" Joseph Fad di Bruno, D. D. (R. C), p. 218. 
New York: Benziger Brothers, 1884. 

God the Son, by assuming this perfect human nature, which he took 
from the Blessed Virgin, was born in the flesh. — Id., p. 208. 

Note. — The Scripture plainly teaches that Jesus was made " in the likeness 
of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2: 14), and thus became united with man in 
his fallen condition. This doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgiu 
Mary separates Jesus from the human family in its present state, by giving him 
a " perfect human nature," free from the stain of original sin. and thus prepares 
the way for the introduction of that human mediation which is one of the promi 
nent features of the Roman Catholic system. The very essence of Christianity 
being the experience. " Christ in you. the hope of glory." it thus appears that 
the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary strikes at the very 
heart of Christianity. — Eds. 

Immaculate Conception, Explained by a Roman Catholic. — Mary 
was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment 
of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin 
could have taken effect in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion 
of sin, the state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed 
to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and 
fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities were excluded. But 
she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from 
sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death. 

The person of Mai;y, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should 
have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the 
mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by 
the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. 

17 



258 IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 

Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wis- 
dom. — ''Immaculate Conception,'' William Bernard Ullathorne, p. 89; 
quoted in Truth (R. C), December, 1914. 

Immaculate Conception, A Modern Dogma. — The doctrine of the 
immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary is a modern dogma of the 
Roman Catholic Church which declares the mother of Jesus absolutely 
free from all implication in the fall of Adam and its consequences. Like / 
most doctrines, it was the result of a long development, and embodies 
in its history the story of a struggle between the Thomist and Scotist 
parties in the church which was not ended till 1854. At the Council 
of Trent the Franciscans demanded the explicit exception of Mary in 
the dogmatic decree on the universality of original sin, and found valu- 
able support from the learned Jesuits Lainez and Salmeron. The Do- 
minicans entered a lively protest, and when the perplexed legates asked 
for instructions from Rome, they were ordered to try to satisfy both 
factions. In this spirit was drawn up the decree on original sin pub- 
lished June 17, 1546. 

For a time the more sober-minded, even among the Jesuits, held 
to the decree. Bellarmine declared the object of the festival to be sim- 
ply the conception, not the immaculate conception, of Mary. Petavius, 
while personally believing in the immaculate conception, denied that it 
was of faith. Even when, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, 
the Spanish Franciscans, aided by the Jesuits, stirred up fresh excite- 
ment over the question, and Philip III and Henry IV sent embassies to 
Rome, the apostolic see preserved its diplomatic attitude. In 1617 
Paul V forbade both parties to engage in public disputes on this ques- 
tion, and Gregory XV extended this prohibition even to private discus- 
sion, answering to the king of Spain that the eternal wisdom had not 
yet revealed the heart of the mystery to men. 

But the tendency in Rome favored the Scotist view more and more. 
Alexander VII called the view very ancient and pious, while still de- 
clining to pronounce the opposite view heretical. Clement IX gave an 
octave to the feast of the conception of the Virgin Mary; Clement XI 
raised the festival in 1708 to the rank of a holy day of obligation for 
the whole church. Under Gregory XVI a strong inclination toward dog- 
matic definition showed itself. Several French bishops and one German 
received permission in 1844 to insert the term " immaculate " in the 
mass of the festival. Pius IX had a special, almost romantic, devotion 
to the Virgin, to whose protection he attributed his preservation on the 
occasion of his flight from the Vatican in 1848. While still an exile, he 
asked the bishops, in his encyclical of Feb. 2, 1849, to say how far a 
dogmatic definition would agree with their wishes and those of their 
people. A number of voices were raised in warning, and only three 
fourths of the bishops agreed with the Pope's desire; but the influence 
of the Jesuits was too powerful to be resisted, Perrone had already 
published (1847) an extended treatise to prove that the question was 
ripe for decision. In 1850 Pius named a commission to investigate the 
question, in which Perrone and his fellow Jesuit, Passaglia, were the 
most influential members. It reached no result until 1853, when it 
reported that no evidence from Scripture was needed for a dogmatic 
declaration, but that tradition alone sufiiced, and that even this need 
not be shown in an unbroken line up to the time of the apostles. 

Since these views were in harmony with the inclination of the 
Pope, he called together in the autumn of 1854 a number of prelates 
(fifty-four cardinals and about one hundred forty bishops), who, in a 
preliminary meeting, greeted the papal decision with loud applause. 
On December 8 the Pope solemnly took his seat in St. Peter's; the dean 



IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 259 

of the Sacred College came before him, and in the name of the whole 
church begged him to pronounce a final decision on the question which 
had so long been discussed. . . . 

The dogma was not sanctioned by an ecumenical council; but since 
the Vatican Council of 1870 declared the Pope infallible, independent of 
a council, the decree of 1854 must be received as an Infallible utterance, 
and cannot be changed. — The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Re- 
ligious Knowledge, Yol. Y, art. " Immaculate Conception,'" pp. 455, 456. 

Immaculate Conception, Growth of Doctrine of. — In the course 
of the twelfth century, the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary 
gained great authority, in the first instance in France. But when the 
canons of Lyons instituted (a. d. 1140) a special festival in honor of 
that doctrine, by which a new Lady Day was added to those already in 
existence, Bernard of Clairvaux, clearly perceiving that thus the specific 
difference between our Saviour and the rest of mankind was endangered, 
strongly opposed both the new doctrine and the festival. Albert the 
Great, Bonaventura, Thomas Aquinas, and with him the order of the 
Dominicans in general, were also zealous in opposition. On the other 
hand, the Franciscan monk Duns Scotus endeavored to refute their ob- 
jections, and to demonstrate, by subtle reasoning, that the greatness of 
the Redeemer, so far from being lessened, was augmented by supposing 
that he himself was the cause of this sinlessness in the nature of Mary; 
yet even Scotus only maintained that the immaculate conception was 
the more probable among the different possibilities. The church hesi- 
tated for a long time without coming to a decision. Pope Sixtus IV at 
last got out of the difficulty by confirming the festival of the immacu- 
late conception, while he declared that the doctrine itself should not be 
called heretical, and allowed those who differed to retain their own 
views. Of course the controversy did not come to an end, especially as 
the tendency of the age was, on the whole, favorable to the dogma. — 
"A History of Christian Doctrines,'' Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Yol. II, p. 261. 
Edinburgh: T. d T. Clark, 1880. 

Immaculate Conception, Some Objections to the Doctrine of. — 

(1) The doctrine contradicts the express Biblical teaching of "Christ 
alone without sin," and the teaching of antiquity for eleven centuries. 

(2) It supposes the creation of one sui generis, neither strictly human 
nor divine. (3) It interferes with the reality of the incarnation, since 
by this doctrine Christ did not partake of that human nature which he 
came to redeem. (4) It takes away from Christ's glory in the miracle 
of the incarnation by conferring a portion of it upon Mary. (5) It is 
the climax of a monstrous doctrine which ought to have been nipped in 
the bud — a doctrine which attributes to Mary a more perfect love and 
sympathy toward sinners than to Christ, with a more accessible and 
powerful mediation than that of the Son of God, and indirectly aims at 
exalting Mary to an equality with the incarnate Son of the Highest. — 
''Modern Romanism Examined," Rev. H. W. Dearden, M. A., pp. 240, 
241. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1899. 

Indulgences, Origin of. — Under the head of "Discipline" we should 
not pass over a custom, under pretense of which the modern theory of 
indulgence has been introduced. Such as were convicted of notorious 
crimes were compelled to make confession of them publicly before the 
whole congregation, to implore pardon, and to undergo whatever punish- 
ment should be imposed on them. The church inflicted some punish- 
ment on them. This was done as well for example, as also to prevent 
reproach to the Christian religion among infidels. These punishments 



260 INDULGENCES, BASIS OF 

were not supposed to be satisfactions to God by redeeming temporal 
punishments. Such an idea cannot be traced in any of the writers of 
the age who mention this practice. We refer to the period a. d. 160. At 
the latter end of the third century, when several lapsed through fear of 
persecution, the punishment and period of probation were more severe 
and lengthened before they were readmitted. Sometimes the period was 
protracted for years together. Hence arose the custom of prescribing 
times or periods — five, ten, or more years of penance. 

But, lest the penitent should die, lose heart and courage, or despair, 
the bishops took upon themselves, under certain circumstances, to miti- 
gate the period of punishment. This act was termed a relaxation or 
remission. It was long after this period that the term indulgence was 
substituted; but still, when introduced, it was quite in another sense to 
its modern use. It signified only a discharge or a mitigation of eccle- 
siastical censures and penalties inflicted by the church, and not a for- 
giveness of the penalty due to God's justice for the sin of the penitent 
which had been forgiven, which is the modern theory. But the transi- 
tion from one to the other can well be comprehended, when we have 
craft and avarice on the one side, and superstition and ignorance on 
the other. — " The Novelties of Romanism," Charles Hastings Collete, 
pp. 115, 116. London: William Penny, 1860. 

Indulgences, Doctrine of. Developed by Schoolmen. — The devel- 
opment of this doctrine in explicit form was the work of the great 
Schoolmen, notably Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, and St. 
Thomas, — The Catholic Encyclopedia, art. " Indulgences'' sec. on " The 
Treasury of the Church;' Vol. VII, p. 784. 

Indulgences, Basis of. — Originally an indulgence was only a re- 
mission of certain kinds of penance which were exchanged for a fine. 
In the crusades the custom arose of a general or plenary indulgence 
(indulgentia plenaria), with which was connected the remission of all 
penance, provided the crusade was undertaken in their stead. Yet the 
church did not always mean by an indulgence, the remission of sins 
in the strict sense. The Schoolmen tried to prove that the church was 
authorized to give such indulgences on certain grounds. At the same 
time they developed the doctrine of the treasury of merits which the 
church had to dispense, and employed it for establishing the theory of 
indulgences. At the foundation of this dogma was the Christian idea 
of fellowship in all goodness, which was brought about by the Spirit 
of Christ. But this idea was applied sensuously, and there was con- 
nected with it the erroneous distinction between the standpoint of per- 
fection and that of fulfilling the law. It was supposed that the saints 
had suffered more than was necessary for the satisfaction which they 
had to render to the divine justice for their own sins. Thus the repre- 
sentation was formed of the Thesaurus meritorum or supererogatiords 
[treasury of merits or supererogation]. Robert Pulleyn, who first of 
all propounded it, only mentions the treasury of Christ's merits, and 
adds that the merits of the Fathers were made acceptable to God 
through Christ. It was further concluded that the church, as the stew- 
ard of this treasure of the merits of Christ and of the saints, could 
appropriate a portion to any one on good grounds, in substitution of 
the punishments of the church which he would otherwise have to suf- 
fer.— " Lectures on the History of Christian Dogmas," Dr. Augustus 
Neander, Vol. II, p. 594, translated by J. E. Ryland. M. A. London: 
George Bell & Sons, 1882. 



INDULGENCES, MEANING OP 261 

Indulgences Defined. — What is an indulgence? 

It is the remission of the temporal punishment due to sins, remitted 
as to their guilt, by the power of the keys, without the sacrament, by 
the application of the satisfactions which are contained in the treasury 
of the church. 

What is understood by the treasury of the church? 

It is the collection (cumulus) of the spiritual goods remaining in the 
divine possession, the distribution of which is intrusted to the church. 

From whence is this treasury collected? 

In the first place it is collected from the superabundant satisfactions 
of Christ, next from the superfluous satisfactions of the Blessed Virgin 
Mary and of the other saints. 

This treasury is the foundation or matter of indulgences, and is 
that infinite treasury made up in part from the satisfactions of Christ; 
moreover it is never to be exhausted; and it daily receives the super- 
abundant satisfactions of pious men. — Dens' " Theologia," Tom. VI, 
Tractatus de Indulgentiis; De IndulgentiaruTn Natura (Dens' Theology 
[R. C], Vol. VI, Treatise on Indulgences; On the Nature of Indulgences). 

Indulgences, Based upon Good Works. — A plenary indulgence is a 
receipt in full for the penalties inflicted in purgatory for sins forgiven 
but not satisfled for by works worthy of repentance. ... In dealing 
with sinners, he [God] distinguishes between the principal and the in- 
terest, or sins and the temporal pains incurred by them. He forgives 
the principal in the confessional; but the accrued interest must be met 
by good works or indulgences earned by the good works of others and 
imputable to us in the communion of saints. — The Western Vf^atch- 
man (R. C), 8t. Louis, Mo., July 3, 1913. 

Indulgences, The Meaning of. Explained. — 5. What means does 
the church offer us to cancel the temporal punishment due still to sin? 

The means that the church offers us to cancel the temporal punish- 
ment due still to sin is to grant us indulgences, 

6. What is an indulgence? 

An indulgence is the remission of temporal punishment due still to 
sin, after the guilt of sin (the offense of God) has been forgiven in the 
sacrament of penance. . . . 

10. Is it not true, then, that the church, by granting indulgences, 
frees us from the obligation of doing penance? 

No, the church does not free us from the obligation of doing pen- 
ance; for the greater our spirit of penance and love for God are, the 
more certain we are of gaining indulgences. The church wishes to 
assist us in our efforts to expiate in this life all temporal punishments, 
in order thus to effect what in ancient times she endeavored to attain by 
rigorous penitential canons. . . . 

12. Who has the power to grant indulgences? 

(1) The Pope has the power to grant plenary and partial indul- 
gences; for, as successor of St. Peter, he has received from Christ the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven; that is, he has power to remove such 
obstacles as hinder our entrance into heaven. Temporal punishment is 
an obstacle to our entrance into heaven. Therefore, the Pope has power 
to remit temporal punishment. 

" Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in 
heaven." Matt. 16:19; 18:18. 

(2) The bishops also have power to grant partial indulgences. . . . 
14. How does the church remit the temporal punishment due to 

our sins? 

The church remits temporal punishment due to sin by making to 



262 INDULGENCES, DECREE CONCERNING 

divine justice compensation for us from the inexhaustible treasure of 
the merits of Christ and his saints. . . . 

16. Can indulgences be applied to the souls in purgatory? 
Indulgences can be applied to the souls in purgatory, when the Pope 

has declared that they can be so applied. 

17. What awaits us in the next life, if we neglect to make due sat 
isf action to divine justice? 

If, in this world, we neglect to make due satisfaction to divine jus 
tice, greater suffering, without any merit, will await us in purgatory.— 
''Familiar Explanation of Catholic Doctrine," Rev. M. Miiller (R. C). 
pp. 390-392. New York: Benziger Brothers. 

Indulgences, The Treasury of Merit. — Upon the altar of the 
cross, Christ shed of his blood not merely a drop, though this would have 
sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole 
human race, but a copious torrent, . . . thereby laying up an infinite 
treasure for mankind. . . . This treasure he neither wrapped up in a 
napkin, nor hid in a field, but intrusted to blessed Peter, the key bearer, 
and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, dis- 
tribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal 
punishment due to sin. — Extravagantes Communes, lib. v. tit. ix, cap. ii 
(The Commion Extravagants IR. C], book 5, title 9, chap. 2). 

Indulgences, Decree Concerning. — The sacred, holy synod teaches 
and enjoins that the use of indulgences for the Christian people, moat 
salutary and approved of by the authority of sacred councils, is to be 
retained in the church; and it condemns with anathema those who 
either assert that they are useless, or who deny that there is in the 
church the power of granting them. ... It ordains generally by this 
decree that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof — whence a most 
prolific cause of abuses among the Christian people has been derived 
— be wholly abolished. — Decree Concerning Indulgences, published in 
the twenty- fifth session of the Council of Trent, in *' Dogmatic Canons 
and Decrees," pp. 173, 174. Neiv York: The Devin- Adair Company, 1912. 

Indulgences, Boniface VIII on. — We, by the mercy of Almighty 
God, etc., relying on his merits and authority and in the fulness of our 
apostolic power, will and do grant to all who, in the present year 1300, 
beginning with the feast of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ just 
past and in every following hundredth year, reverently come to the 
basilicas themselves, truly repenting and after confession, or who shall 
truly repent and confess in this present year and in every succeeding 
hundredth year, not only full and greater, but indeed most full pardon 
for all their sins, provided that those who desire to be partakers in this 
indulgence granted by us visit the aforesaid basilicas, if they are Ro- 
mans, at least on thirty consecutive or non-consecutive days, and at least 
once each day, but if they are strangers or foreigners, on fifteen days in 
like manner. — Extract from the Bull of Boniface VIII (R. C), published 
in 1300; ''Extravagantes Communes," lib. v, tit. ix, cap. i (The Common 
Extravagants, book 5, title 9, chap. 1). 

Indulgences, Tetzel's Estimate of. — In the fulfilment of his [Tet- 
zel's] present commission, his habit was to travel from town to town, 
in pomp and with a retinue as one of the nobles of the land. Into each 
town, as he approached it, the message was sent, " The grace of God is 
at your gates." Forthwith the town council and the clergy, the monks 
and nuns from the convents, the schools and trades, hastened to form 
Into procession; and with standards and wax lights in hand^ and ring- 



INDULGENCES, A SAMPLE OF 263 

ing of the church bells, advanced to meet it; there being as much show 
of honor paid to it, it is said, as if it had been God himself. On re- 
turning, the course of the procession was to the principal church in 
the town. The papal bull was borne on a rich velvet cushion or cloth 
of gold; a red cross elevated near it by the commissary; and the chant- 
ing of prayers and hymns, and fuming of incense, kept up as its accom- 
paniment. Arrived at the church, it was received with the sound of the 
organ. Then, the red cross and papal arms having been placed by the 
great altar, the commissary mounted the pulpit. And this is related 
as the style of his addresses to the assembled people: 

" Now is the heaven opened. Now is grace and salvation offered. 
Christ, acting no more himself as God, has resigned all his power to the 
Pope. Hence the present dispensation of mercy. Happy are your eyes 
that see the things that ye see. By virtue of the letters bearing the 
papal seal that I offer you, not only is the guilt of past sins remitted, 
but that of sins that you may wish to commit in future. None is so 
great, but that pardon is insured to the purchaser. And not the sins 
of the living only, but of the dead in purgatory. As soon as the money 
sounds in the receiving box, the soul of the purchaser's relative flies 
from purgatory to heaven. Now is the accepted time, now the day 
of salvation. Who so insensate, who so hard-hearted, as not to profit by 
it? Soon I shall remove the cross, shut the gate of heaven, extinguish 
the bright sunbeams of grace that shine before you. How shall they 
escape that neglect so great salvation?" — "■ Horce Apocalypticw," Rev. 
E. B. Elliott, A. M., Tol. II, pp. 66, 67, 3d edition. London: Seeley, 
Burnside, and Seeley, 1847. 

Indulgences, Tetzel's Claims Conceening. — Tetzel conducted him- 
self, on his commercial journeys, like a high prelate. He drove into 
the cities in superb style, amidst the pealing of bells. The papal in- 
dulgence bull was carried before him on a velvet cushion. Solemn pro- 
cessions, bearing crosses and banners, went to meet him and escorted 
him into the church. Then a red cross, upon which were the pontifical 
arms, was set up, and this Tetzel affirmed to be as efficacious as the 
cross of Christ himself. One of his train even tried to make the 
multitude believe that he saw the blood of Christ flowing gently down 
over it (the red color of the cross, if steadily gazed upon by the credu- 
lous, might easily engender such an optical illusion). Indulgences were 
offered upon every condition — even for future sins. The little couplet 
of which the indulgence vendors made use is well known: " When in the 
chest the coin doth ring, the soul direct to heaven doth spring " [" Wenn 
nur das Geld im Kasten ringt, die Seele gleich den Himmel springt"']. 
— " History of the Reformation,'' Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Vol. I, pp. 95, 96. 
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1878. 

Indulgences, A Sample of. — The following is a copy of one of 
Tetzel's indulgences, as translated by Dr. Robertson: 

" May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve 
thee, by the merits of his most holy passion! And I by his authority, 
that of his blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and of the most holy see, 
granted and committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first, from 
all ecclesiastical censures, in whatever manner they have been in- 
curred; and then from all thy sins, transgressions, and excesses, how 
enormous soever they may be, even from such as are reserved for the 
cognizance of the apostolic see; And as far as the keys of the church 
extend, I remit to you all punishment which you deserve in purgatory 
on their account; and I restore you to the holy sacraments of the 
church, to the unity of the faithful, and to that innocence and purity 



26 4 INDULGENCES, TAXES RELATING TO 

which you possessed at baptism: so that, if you should die now, the 
gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of 
delights shall be opened. And if you shall not die at present, this grace 
shall remain in full force when you are on the point of death. In the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." — " Horm 
Apocalypticw,'' Rev, E. B. Elliott, A. M., Vol. II, p. 69, 3d edition. Lon- 
don: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847. 

Indulgences, " Taxes of the Apostolic Chancery." — It is not 
only in the rituals or penitentials we have quoted that the nomenclature 
of the commutations of penalties and that of the taxes imposed upon 
penitents by the popes, bishops, and monks, is to be found. There ex- 
isted such in every diocese in the Middle Ages; but they varied accord- 
ing to the period and the spirit in which they were composed. If a 
greater number of them have not reached our own time, it is because 
they were kept secret in the hands of a limited number of confessors 
without it being lawful to communicate them to the laity. Accordingly, 
we find that Pope Nicholas, on being consulted thereon in 1366, replied: 
" It is not meet that laymen should be acquainted with these things, for 
they have no right to judge the acts of the priesthood." 

The custom of obtaining absolution for sins having been gradually 
introduced into the Latin Church, the popes took almost exclusive pos- 
session of this lucrative branch of revenue. Leo X then ordered lists 
and catalogues of sins to be drawn up at Rome, designating the sum 
that was to be paid to obtain absolution for them. Therein we find also 
permissions and dispensations which concern either the laity or the 
ecclesiastics, and for the obtaining of which payment was to be made, 
as is also the custom in the present day in several cases. This eccle- 
siastical budget is entitled : " Taxes of the Apostolic Chancery," and 
" Taxes of the Holy Apostolic Penitentiary." This monstrous abuse, as 
pernicious to morality as to religion, was, for several centuries, set 
working on a large scale, and procured considerable revenues to the 
court of Rome. To satisfy the reader's curiosity, we give here an ex- 
tract of a few of the articles which are found in this work: 

For a town to be entitled to coin money, 500 drachms (gros). 

Remission given to a rich man for the wealth which he has ab- 
sconded with, 50d. 

For a poor man, 20d. 

For a layman not to be bound to observe fasts commanded by the 
church, and to eat cheese, 20d. 

For permission given to counts to eat meat and eggs on forbidden 
days, on account of their health, 12d. . . . 

For exempting a layman from a vow thoughtlessly made, 12d. . . . 

For enabling a king and queen to procure indulgences, as if they 
had been to Rome, 200d. 

For permission to have mass celebrated in a forbidden place, lOd. 

For absolution at the point of death, for one person, 14d. . . . 

For the absolution of any one practising usury in secret, 7d. 

For the absolution of any one who has been intimate with a woman 
in a church, and has done any other harm, 6d. . . . 

For the absolution of him who has connu charnellement any female 
of his kindred, 5d. 

For the absolution of him who has violated a virgin, 6d. . . . 

For the absolution of perjury, bd. 

For the absolution of any one who has revealed the confession of 
another person, 7d. . . . 

For permission to eat meat, butter, eggs, and whatever is made of 
milk, during Lent or other fast days, 7d. 



INDULGENCES, LUTHER'S THESIS AGAINST 265 

For the absolution of him who has killed his father, mother, brother, 
sister, wife, or any other of his lay relations, 5 or 6d. . . . 

For the absolution of a husband who, beating his wife, causes 
abortion, 6d. 

For a woman who takes any beverage or employs any other means 
to cause her child to perish, 5d. . . . 

For an absolution for spoilers, incendiaries, thieves, and homicidal 
laymen, 8d. 

It would be supererogatory to give further extracts from a book 
which contains more than eight hundred cases subject to the apostolic 
tax. — " History of Auricular Confession," Count C. P. de Lasteyrie, (2 
vol. ed.) Yol. II, pp. 131-135. London: Richard Bentley, 1848. 

Indulgences, Some of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses Against. — 

5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penal- 
ties, except those which he has imposed by his own authority, or by 
that of the canons. . . . 

27. They preach man, who say that the soul flies out of purgatory 
as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles. 

-28. It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest, avarice 
and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the church depends on 
the will of God alone. . . . 

32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they are 
made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned along with 
their teachers. . . . 

35. They preach no Christian doctrine, who teach that contrition is 
not necessary for those who buy souls out of purgatory or buy confes- 
sional licenses. . . . 

39. It is a most diflBcult thing, even for the most learned theolo- 
gians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the people the ample 
effect of pardons and the necessity of true contrition. . . . 

43. Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor man, or 
lends to a needy man, does better than if he bought pardons. . . . 

50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope were acquainted 
with the exactions of the preachers of pardons, he would prefer that the 
basilica of St. Peter should be burnt to ashes, than that it should be 
built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep. . . . 

52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon, even if 
a commissary — nay, the Pope himself — were to pledge his own soul 
for them. . . . 

56. The treasures of the church, whence the Pope grants indul- 
gences, are neither suflaciently named nor known among the people of 
Christ. . . . 

66. The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now fish 
for the riches of men. — " Luther's Primary Works," Wace and Buch- 
heim, pp. 414-419. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1896. 

Indulgences, Uncertainty of, for Souls in Purgatory. — There is 
this difference between indulgences gained for the living and the dead, 
that in the former case their effect is produced by way of absolution, 
and in the latter by way of suffrage. The church exercises direct au- 
thority over the faithful on earth; and when she absolves them from 
censures, from sin, or from the debt of punishment, the effect is infal- 
lible, provided the person so absolved be in proper dispositions. We are 
certain, therefore, in this case, that the fruit of the indulgence will be 
applied where there is no obstacle, because Christ has promised the 
church that " whatever she [sic] shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed 
also in heaven." Matt. 16: 19. It is an article of faith that the souls 



266 INFALLIBILITY 

in purgatory are helped by our prayers; but the church does not exer 
cise the same authority over the faithful departed that she does over 
those upon earth. She cannot, therefore, directly release the suffering 
souls by absolving them from their debt of punishment; but she offers 
to God a satisfaction equal to that debt, and she begs him to accept it 
in their behalf. The indulgences thus gained will certainly not be lost, 
and should God not see fit to accept them in behalf of the particular 
souls for whom they are offered, he will not fail to allow them to serve 
for the benefit of others. — "A Manual of Instructions in Christian Doc- 
trine," edited by the late Provost Wenham, revised by the Rev. W. J. B. 
Richards^ D. D., and the Rt. Rev. James Garr, V. G. (R. C), 15th edition, 
pp. 359, 360. London: W. J. Cahill, 1901. 

Infallibility, Blasphemous in Character. — If the claims which 
are put forth by the bishops of Rome to infallibility and universal su- 
premacy are not just, — we are compelled very reluctantly to say it, — 
then there is no alternative, they are nothing short of blasphemy. For 
they are claims to participation in the attributes of God himself. And 
if he does not authorize these claims, they are usurpations of his divine 
prerogatives. They therefore who abet those claims are fighting against 
him. They are defying him, who " is a jealous God, and will not give 
his honor to another," and who is " a consuming fire." May they there- 
fore take heed in time, lest they incur his malediction! — "-St. Hippo- 
lytus and the Church of Rome." Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 300. London: 
Rivingtons, 1880. 

Infallibility, Events Connected with Proclamation or. — It is also 
a remarkable coincidence, that the promulgation of the dogma of the 
personal infallibility of the Papacy by the present Pope, in the council 
which commenced its sessions on the festival of the Immaculate Con- 
ception, was followed on the next day after that promulgation (July 19, 
1870) by the declaration of war on the part of Prance against Prussia; 
which has led to the sudden humiliation of France, the protectress of 
Rome, and to the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome, and to 
the opening of the gates of Rome to the forces of Victor Emmanuel. 

It is also worthy of notice that in the same year, 1870, on the very 
next day after the anniversary of the festival of the Immaculate Con- 
ception on which (in 1854) the novel dogma of the immaculate con- 
ception was promulgated, and on which (in 1869) the Vatican Council 
met, which has decreed the Pope's infallibility, — a public document 
and manifesto was laid before the Italian Parliament, in which the 
government of the king of Italy announced a royal decree, accepting the 
city and provinces of Rome, transferred to the king by a plehiscito of 
the Roman people themselves, and in which it is declared that the 
Pope's temporal power is extinct, and that Rome is no longer to be the 
metropolis of the Roman Papacy, but is henceforth to become, in lieu 
of Florence, the capital of the kingdom of Italy. 

These coincidences were undesigned; the principal actors in them 
thought nothing of the Apocalypse. 

But they who have that divine book in their hands, and who re- 
member Christ's command to " discern the signs of the times," and who 
consider the blessing which is promised to those who read and meditate 
upon the Apocalypse, will mark these facts, and will observe these 
coincidences, and will inquire with reverence, whether the prophecies 
of the book of Revelation are not now receiving their accomplishment 
in Italy and at Rome. — " Union with Rome," Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., 
pp. 98, 99. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909. 



INFALLIBrLITY 267 

Infallibility, Significance of. — The sinlessness of the Virgin 
Mary and the personal infallibility of the Pope are the characteristic 
dogmas of modern Romanism, the two test dogmas which must decide 
the ultimate fate of this system. Both were enacted under the same 
Pope, and both faithfully reflect his character. Both have the advantage 
of logical consistency from certain premises, and seem to be the very 
perfection of the Romish form of piety and the Romish principle of 
authority. Both rest on pious fiction and fraud; both present a re- 
fined idolatry by clothing a pure, humble woman and a mortal, sinful 
man with divine attributes. The dogma of the immaculate conception, 
which exempts the Virgin Mary from sin and guilt, perverts Chris- 
tianism into Marianism; the dogma of infallibility, which exempts the 
Bishop of Rome from error, resolves Catholicism into papalism, or the 
church Into the pope. The worship of a woman is virtually substituted 
for the worship of Christ, and a man-god in Rome for the God-man in 
heaven. This is a severe judgment, but a closer examination will sus 
tain it. 

The dogma of the immaculate conception, being confined to the 
sphere of devotion, passed into the modern Roman creed without serious 
difficulty; but the dogma of papal infallibility, which involves a question 
of absolute power, forms an epoch in the history of Romanism, and 
created the greatest commotion and a new secession. It is in its very 
nature the most fundamental and most comprehensive of all dogmas. 
It contains the whole system in a nutshell. It constitutes a new rule 
of faith. It is the article of the standing or falling church. It is the 
direct antipode of the Protestant principle of the absolute supremacy 
and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. It establishes a perpetual 
divine oracle in the Vatican. Every Catholic may hereafter say, I 
believe — not because Christ, or the Bible, or the church, but — because 
the infallible Pope has so declared and commanded. 

Admitting this dogma, we admit not only the whole body of 
doctrines contained in the Tridentine standards, but all the oflBcial 
papal bulls, including the medieval monstrosities of the Syllabus (1864), 
the condemnation of Jansenism, the bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface 
VIII (1302), which, under pain of damnation, claims for the Pope the 
double sword, the secular as well as the spiritual, over the whole 
Christian world, and the power to depose princes and to absolve subjects 
from their oath of allegiance. The past is irreversibly settled, and in^ 
all future controversies on faith and morals we must look to the same 
unerring tribunal in the Vatican. Even ecumenical councils are super- 
seded hereafter, and would be a mere waste of time and strength. 

On the other hand, if the dogma is false, it involves a blasphemous 
assumption, and makes the nearest approach to the fulfilment of St. 
Paul's prophecy of the man of sin, who " as God sitteth in the temple 
of God, showing himself off that he is God" (2 Thess. 2: 4). — ''Rome 
and the Newest Fashions in Religion,'' Hon. William E. Gladstone, pp. 
83, 84. New York: Harper d Brothers, 1875. 

Infallibility, Dr. Dollingeb on. — The root of the whole ultramon- 
tane habit of mind is the personal infallibility of the Pope, and accord- 
ingly the Jesuits declare it to be the wish of true Catholics that this 
dogma should be defined at the forthcoming council. If this desire is 
accomplished, a new principle of immeasurable importance, both retro- 
spective and prospective, will be established — a principle which, when 
once irrevocably fixed, will extend its dominion over men's minds more 
and more, till it has coerced them into subjection to every papal pro- 
nouncement in matters of religion, morals, politics, and social science. 
For it will be idle to talk any more of the Pope's encroaching on a 



268 INFAIiLIBLLITY 



foreign domain; he, and he alone, as being infallible, will have the 
right of determining the limits of his teaching and action at his own 
good pleasure, and every such determination will bear the stamp of 
infallibility, [pp. 45, 46] . . . 

Papal infallibility, once defined as a dogma, will give the impulse 
to a theological, ecclesiastical, and even political revolution, the nature 
of which very few — and least of all those who are urging it on — have 
clearly realized, and no hand of man will be able to stay its course. In 
Rome itself the saying will be verified, "Thou wilt shudder thyself at 
thy likeness to God." 

In the next place, the newly coined article of faith will inevitably 
take root as the foundation and corner-stone of the whole Roman Cath- 
olic edifice. The whole activity of theologians will be concentrated on 
the one point of ascertaining whether or not a papal decision can be 
quoted for any given doctrine, and in laboring to discover and amass 
proof for it from history and literature. Every other authority will 
pale beside the living oracle on the Tiber, which speaks with plenary 
inspiration, and can always be appealed to. 

What use in tedious investigations of Scripture, what use in wasting 
time on the difficult study of tradition, which requires so many kinds 
of preliminary knowledge, when a single utterance of the infallible Pope 
may shatter at a breath the labors of half a lifetime, and a telegraphic 
message to Rome will get an answer in a few hours or a few days, which 
becomes an axiom and article of faith? [pp. 47, 48] . . . 

To prove the dogma of papal infallibility from church history, noth- 
ing less is required than a complete falsification of it. The declarations 
of popes which contradict the doctrines of the church, or contradict each 
other (as the same pope sometimes contradicts himself), will have to 
be twisted into agreement, so as to show that their heterodox or mu- 
tually destructive enunciations are at bottom sound doctrine, or, when 
a little has been subtracted from one dictum and added to the other, are 
not really contradictory, and mean the same thing. — " The Pope and the 
Council,'' Janus (Dr. J. J. Ign. von Bollinger) (R. C), pp. 45-50. Lon- 
don: Rivingtons, 1869. 

Even the boldest champions of papal absolutism, men like Agostino 
Trionfo [Augustinus de Ancona] and Alvaro Pelayo, assumed that the 
popes could err, and that their decisions were no certain criterion. . . . 
'^ So, too. Cardinal Jacob Fournier, afterward pope, thought that papal 
decisions were by no means final, but might be overruled by another 
pope, and that John XXII had done well in annulling the offensive and 
doctrinally erroneous decision of Nicolas III on the poverty of Christ, 
and the distinction of use and possession. . . . And Innocent IV allowed 
that a papal command containing anything heretical, or threatening de- 
struction to the whole church system, was not to be obeyed, and that a 
pope might err in matters of faith. — Id., pp. 272, 273. 

Note. — The standing of J. J. Ign. von Dollinger as a historian and a theo- 
logian will not be disputed by any one who is fairly well versed in the history of 
the Roman Church. It is well known that he persistently refused to subscribe to 
the dogma of infallibility, and that he was on this account excommunicated 
(April 18, 1871) by the church to which he had rendered such signal service. 
Using the pseudonym " Janus," Dr. Dollinger wrote a book, " Der Pahst und der 
Konzil" (The Pope and the Council), in which he discussed the question of 
papal infallibility from the standpoint of both a theologian and a historian, and 
presented the most telling arguments against it. This book created a great stir 
in the council, and of course was speedily placed upon the papal Index. — Eds. 

Infallibility, Dolunger's Rejection of. — As Christian, as theolo- 
gian, as historian, as citizen, I cannot accept this doctrine. I cannot do 
9Q as a Christian, because it is incompatible with the spirit of the gos- 



INFALLEBILIT Y 269 

pel, and with the lucid sayings of Christ and the apostles; it simply 
wishes to establish the kingdom of this world, which Christ declined 
to do, and to possess the sovereignty over the congregations, which 
Peter refused for every one else, as well as for himsdff. I cannot do so 
as a theologian, because the whole genuine tradition of the church 
stands irreconcilably opposed to it. I cannot do so as a historian, 
because, as such, I know that the persistent endeavors to realize this 
theory of a universal sovereignty has cost Europe streams of blood, dis- 
tracted and ruined whole countries, shaken to its foundations the beau- 
tiful organic edifice of the constitution of the older church, and begotten, 
nursed, and maintained the worst abuses in the church. Finally, I must 
reject it as a citizen, because, with its claims on the submission of 
states and monarchs and the whole political order of things to the papal 
power, and by the exceptional position claimed by it for the clergy, it 
lays the foundation for an endless and fatal discord between the state 
and the church, between the clergy and the laity. — " Declarations and 
Letters on the Vatican Decrees," Dr. J. J. Ign. von Dollinger (R. C), 
p. 103. Edinburgh: T. d.T. Clark, 1891. 

Infallibility, Excerpt from Archbishop Kenrick's Famous Speech 
Against. — I say that the infallibility of the Pope is not a doctrine of 
faith. 

1. It is not contained in the symbols of the faith; it is not presented 
as an article of faith in the catechisms; and it is not found as such in 
any document of public worship. Therefore the church has not hitherto 
taught it as a thing to be believed of faith; as, if it were a doctrine of 
faith, it ought to have delivered and taught it. 

2. Not only has not the church taught it in any public instrument, 
but it has suffered it to be impugned, not everywhere, but, with the pos- 
sible exception of Italy, almost everywhere in the world, and that for 
a long time. — " An Inside View of the Vatican Council," Speech of Arch- 
bishop Kenrick, p. 139. New York: American Tract Society. 

Note. — Among " the most illustrious and learned prelates and scholars of 
the Roman communion " who strenuously opposed the doctrine of the dogma of 
infallibility, were the Archbishop of Paris, the Bishop of Orleans, the Bishop 
of Rottenburg (Charles Joseph Hefele, the author of the celebrated " History of 
Church Councils"), the Archbishop of St. Louis, and J. J. Ign. von Dollinger, the 
well-known historian and theologian. Peter Richard Kenrick, Archbishop of St. 
Louis, prepared a speech to be delivered in the Vatican Council, but as he was 
prevented from delivering this speech by the sudden and unexpected closing of 
the debate, it was printed and circulated among the bishops at the council. The 
original of this famous speech is found in " Documenta ad Illustrandum Concilium 
Vaticanum/' part 1, pp. 189-226. A translation of it is found in " The Vatican 
Council," issued by the American Tract Society, New York, pp. 95-166. — Eds. 

Infallibility, The Testimony of History Concerning. — As to con- 
crete examples of the fallibility of the Pope, even when speaking ex 
cathedra, scholars, Roman Catholic as well as Protestant, have supplied 
us with enough to convince any one whose mind is not closed against 
conviction. 

Two popes of the third century, Zephyrinus and Callistus, were 
guilty of heresy in relation to the person of our Lord, according to the 
testimony of Hippolytus, saint and martyr. 

Pope Liberius (a. d. 358) subscribed an Arian creed and condemned 
Athanasius, the great champion of the .divinity of Christ. 

Pope Zosimus gave the stamp of orthodoxy to the Pelagian heresy, 
but afterward, under pressure from St. Augustine, reversed his decision. 

Pope Vigilius (538-555), having been repudiated by the fifth ecu- 
menical council, made his submission to the council and confessed that 
he had been the tool of Satan. 



270 INFAIiLIBILiITY 

Pope Honorius I (625-638) taught ex cathedrd the Monothelite her- 
esy, and was excommunicated as a heretic by an ecumenical council — 
universally acknowledged both in the East and in the West — which 
assembled in Constantinople in 680. Their anathema was repeated by 
the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils. And finally the succeeding 
popes for three hundred years pronounced " an eternal anathema " on 
Pope Honorius, thus recognizing both the justice of his condemnation 
and also the principle that a general council may condemn a pope for 
heresy. 

All attempts to escape the iron grasp of the facts of history in this 
crucial instance of the breakdown of the theory of papal infallibility 
have failed conspicuously. — ''Romanism in the Light of History" Ran- 
dolph H. McKim, D. D., pp. 133, 134. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 
1914. 

Alvaro Pelayo, who, next to Augustine of Ancona [Augustinus Tri- 
umphus], furthered the aggrandizement of the papal power, with the 
greatest zeal, beyond all previous bounds, and almost beyond all limits 
whatever, in his great work on the condition of the cliurch, makes men- 
tion of the judgment which came upon Anastasius, in order to prove his 
dictum that a heretical pope must receive a far heavier sentence than 
any other. Occam, also, makes use of the '* heretical " Anastasius as an 
instance to prove, what was his main point, that the church erred by 
his recognition. The Council of Basle in like manner, with a view to 
establishing the necessary supremacy of an ecumenical council over the 
Pope, did not fail to appeal to the fact that popes who did not obey 
the church were treated by her as heathens and publicans, as one reads 
of Liberius and Anastasius. 

" The Pope," says Domenicus dei Domenici, Bishop of Torcello, 
somewhat later, in a letter addressed to Pope Calixtus III (1455-58), 
" the Pope by himself alone is not an infallible rule of faith, for some 
popes have erred in faith, as, for example, Liberius and Anastasius II, 
and the latter was in consequence punished by God." After him the 
Belgian John le Maire, also, says (about 1515) Liberius and Anastasius 
are the two popes of ancient times, who, subsequent to the Donation of 
Constantine, obtained an infamous reputation in the church as heretics. 
— " Fables Respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages,'' J. J. Ign. von 
Bollinger (R. C), pp. 219, 220. London: Rivingtons, 1871. 

Infallibility, Silence Concerning, for Many Centuries. — Some ex- 
planation is imperatively needed of the strange phenomenon, that an 
opinion according to which Christ has made the Pope of the day the 
one vehicle of his inspirations, the pillar and exclusive organ of divine 
truth, without whom the church is like a body without a soul, deprived 
of the power of vision, and unable to determine any point of faith — 
that such an opinion, which is for the future to be a sort of dogmatic 
Atlas carrying the whole edifice of faith and morals on its shoulders, 
should have first been certainly ascertained in the year of grace 1869, 
but is from henceforth to be placed as a primary article of faith at 
the head of every catechism. 

For thirteen centuries an incomprehensible silence on this funda- 
mental article reigned throughout the whole church and her literature. 
None of the ancient confessions of faith, no catechism, none of the 
patristic writings composed for the instruction of the people, contain 
a syllable about the Pope, still less any hint that all certainty of 
faith and doctrine depends on him. For the first thousand years of 
church history not a question of doctrine was finally decided by the 
Pope. The Roman bishops took no part in the commotions which 



I 



INFAIiLIBLLITY 271 



the numerous Gnostic sects, the Montanists and Chiliasts, produced 
in the early church, nor can a single dogmatic decree issued by one 
of them be found during the first four centuries, nor a trace of the 
existence of any. Even the controversy about Christ kindled by Paul 
of Samosata, which occupied the whole Eastern Church for a long 
time and necessitated the assembling of several councils, was termi- 
nated without the Pope taking any part in it. So again in the chain of 
controversies and discussions connected with the names of Theodotus, 
Artemon, Noetus, Sabellius, Beryllus, and Lucian of Antioch, which 
troubled the whole church, and extended over nearly one hundred fifty 
years, there is no proof that the Roman bishops acted beyond the limits 
of their own local church, or accomplished any dogmatic result. The 
only exception is the dogmatic treatise of the Roman bishop Dlonysius, 
following a synod held at Rome in 262, denouncing and rejecting Sabelli- 
anism and the opposite method of expression of Dionysius of Alexan- 
dria. This document, if any authority had been ascribed to it, was 
well fitted in itself to cut short, or rather strangle at its birth, the long 
Arian disturbance; but it was not known out of Alexandria, and 
exercised no influence whatever on the later course of the controversy. 
It is only known from the fragments quoted afterward by Athanasius. 
In three controversies during this early period the Roman Church 
took an active part, — the question about Easter, about heretical bap- 
tism, and about the penitential discipline. In all three the popes were 
unable to carry out their own will and view and practice, and the 
other churches maintained their different usage without its leading to 
any permanent division. Pope Victor's attempt to compel the churches 
of Asia Minor to adopt the Roman usage, by excluding them from his 
communion, proved a failure. — " The Pope and the Council,'' Janus 
(J. J. Ign. von Dollinger) (R. O.,), pp. 63-66. London: Rivingtons, 1869. 

Infallibility, Opposition to, in the Sixteenth Century. — Out of 
Italy, the hypothesis of infallibility had but few adherents even in 
the sixteenth century, till the Jesuits began to exercise a powerful in- 
fluence. In Spain, the subjection of a pope to a council, in accordance 
with the decrees of Constance and Basle, had been maintained, as late 
as the fifteenth century, by the most distinguished theologian of his 
country, Alfonso Madrigal, named Tostado. The Spanish bishop, An- 
drew Escobar, went further in the same direction. It was the Inqui- 
sition which first brought the doctrine of the Roman Jesuits into uni- 
versal prevalence there, by making all contradiction impossible. 

In Germany, before the Jesuits had gained the control of the uni- 
versities and courts, the theologians, who were contending against 
Protestantism, stood entirely on the side of the councils. They saw 
with what terrible weapons the adoption of papal infallibility armed 
Protestantism against the Catholic Church, and how it robbed her 
of her prerogative of dogmatic immutability. Cochlaeus, Witzel, and 
Bishop Nausea of Vienna rejected it. " It would be too perilous," says 
the latter, "to make our faith dependent on the judgment of a single 
individual; the whole earth is greater than the city." — Id., pp. 379, 380. 

Infallibility, Contradicted by Actions of Various Popes. — Inno- 
cent VIII had already, in 1486, acknowledged the orthodoxy of the Paris 
University, at a time when the theologians Almain and Johannes Ma- 
jor declared in its name that it branded as heresy the doctrine of the 
superiority of the Pope to a council, and this was universally taught 
in France and Germany. The Cardinal of Lorraine made a similar 
statement at the Council of Trent, without its provoking any contradic- 



272 INFALLIBILITY 

tion. Adrian VI was elected Pope, although it was notorious that, as 
professor of theology at Louvain, he had maintained in his principal 
work that several popes had been heretical, and that it was certainly 
possible for a Pope to establish a heresy by his decisions or decretals. 
The phenomenon of a Pope so wholly destitute of any consciousness of 
infallibility that as Pope he had his work denying it reprinted in 
Rome, was not without its effect. Men could still venture in Italy 
to defend the authority and decrees of the two councils, and reject the 
papal system as untenable on historical and canonical grounds. This 
was proved by the work of Bishop Ugoni, of Famagusta, which re- 
ceived the commendation and assent of Paul III, in spite of his con- 
tradicting Torquemada, and maintaining the judicial authority of coun- 
cils over popes. And again, it is clear from the whole contents of the 
famous and outspoken memorial on the state of the church in Rome 
and Italy, drawn up by the Cardinals Caraffa, Pole, Sadolet, and Con- 
tarini, with the assistance of Fregoso, Giberto, Aleandro, Badia, and 
Cortese, that they had very distinctly realized the ecclesiastical errors, 
mistakes, and false principles of the popes, and were by no means ad- 
dicted to the hypothesis of papal infallibility. When they describe the 
misery brought upon the whole church through the blindness of the popes, 
its desolation, nay downfall, caused by the false doctrines of papal om- 
nipotence and absolutism, they were certainly far from supposing that 
Christ has bestowed on every pope the privilege of strengthening his 
brethren by his dogmatic infallibility, while he is weakening and dis- 
membering the whole church by his perverse ordinances. — " The Pope 
and the Council," Janus (Dr. J. J. Ign. von Dollinger) (R. G.), pp. 375-377. 
London: Rivingtons, 1869. 

Infallibility, Condemnation of Pope Honobius Recorded in the 
Early Roman Breviaries. — The condemnation of Pope Honorius for 
heresy is recorded in the Roman Breviaries until the sixteenth century, 
at which period the name Honorius suddenly disappears. The theory 
of papal infallibility was at that time being rapidly developed. A fact 
opposed it. The evidence for the fact is suppressed. " I have before 
me," writes Pere Gratry, " a Roman Breviary of 1520, printed at Turin, 
in which, on the feast of St. Leo, June 28, I find the condemnation of 
Honorius: In which synod were condemned Sergius, Cyrus, Honorius, 
Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, . . . who asserted and proclaimed one will 
and operation in our Lord Jesus Christ. 

" I open the Roman Breviary of today," he continues, "and there I find 
in the instruction of St. Leo (June 28) : In this council were condemned 
Cyrus, Sergius, and Pyrrhus, who preached only one will and operation 
in Christ. The trifling incident of a Pope condemned for heresy by an 
ecumenical council is simply omitted by the revisers of the Breviary in 
the sixteenth century. Father Garnier, in his edition of the Liter Di- 
urnus, says, with a gentle irony, that they omitted it for the sake of 
brevity. — "Pope Honorius," Willis; cited in "Roman Catholic Claims,^' 
Charles Gore, D. D., D. C. L., LL. D., p. Ill, footnote. London: Long- 
mans, Green <& Co., 1909. 

Infallibility, The Case of Vigilius. — Pope Vigilius [538-555] was 
less happy in the dispute about the " Three Chapters " — the writings of 
Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas, which were held to be Nestorian, — 
which he first pronounced orthodox in 546, then condemned the next 
year, and thus again reversed this sentence in deference to the Western 
bishops, and then came into conflict with the fifth General Council, 
which excommunicated him. Finally, he submitted to the judgment 
of the council, declaring that he had unfortunately been a tool in 



INFALLIBILITY 273 

the hands of Satan, who labors for the destruction of the church, and 
had thus been divided from his colleagues, but God had now enlightened 
him. Thus he thrice contradicted himself: first he anathematized those 
who condemned the Three Chapters as erroneous; then he anathema- 
tized those who held them to be orthodox, as he had just before himself 
held them to be; soon after he condemned the condemnation of the 
Three Chapters; and lastly, the emperor and council triumphed again 
over the fickle Pope, — " The Pope and the Council,'" Janus (Dr. J. J. Ign. 
von DolUnger) (R. GJ, pp. 7S, 73. London: Rivingtons, 1869. 

Infallibility, The Heresy of Liberius. — Liberius purchased Eis 
return from exile from the emperor by condemning Athanasius, and 
subscribing an Arian creed. " Anathema to thee, Liberius! " was then 
the cry of zealous Catholic bishops like Hilary of Poitiers. This apos- 
tasy of Liberius sufficed, through the whole of the Middle Ages, for a 
proof that popes could fall into heresy as well as other people. — Jd., 
p. 68. 

Infallibility, Newman's Celebrated Letter on. — As to myself per- 
sonally, please God, I do not expect any trial at all; but I cannot help 
suffering with the many souls who are suffering, and I look with anxiety 
at the prospect of having to defend decisions which may not be difficult 
to my own private judgment, but may be most difficult to maintain 
logically in the face of historical facts. 

What have we done to be treated as the faithful never were treated 
before? When has a definition de fide been a luxury of devotion and 
not a stern, painful necessity? Why should an aggressive, insolent fac- 
tion [evidently meaning the Jesuits — Eds.] be allowed to " make the 
heart of the just sad, whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful "? Why 
cannot we be let alone when we have pursued peace and thought 
no evil? [p. 356] . . . 

Then, again, think of the store of pontifical scandals in the history 
of eighteen centuries, which have partly been poured forth and partly 
are still to come. What Murphy infiicted upon us in one way, M. Veuillot 
is indirectly bringing on us in another. And then again, the blight which 
is falling upon the multitude of Anglican ritualists, etc., who themselves, 
perhaps — at least their leaders — may never become Catholics, but who 
are leavening the various English denominations and parties (far be- 
yond their own range) with principles and sentiments tending toward 
their ultimate absorption into the Catholic Church. 

With these thoughts ever before me, I am continually asking myself 
whether I ought not to make my feelings public; but all I do is to pray 
those early doctors of the church, whose intercession would decide the 
matter (Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and 
Basil), to avert this great calamity. 

If it is God's will that the Pope's infallibility be defined, then is it 

God's will to throw back " the times and moments " of that triumph 

which he has destined for his kingdom, and I shall feel I have but to 

bow my head to his adorable, inscrutable providence. — Extract from a 

Letter from, John Henry Newman to Bishop Ullathorne; '"Letters from 

Rome" Quirinus (Lord Acton) (R. C), pp. S56-S58. London: Rivingtons, 

1870. 

Note. — Among the most noted converts from the Church of England to the 
Roman Catholic Church was John Henry Newman, who was made cardinal by 
Pope Leo XIII in 1879. This letter was written by him when It appeared likely 
that the Vatican Council would adopt the decree of infallibility. — Eds. 

Infallibility, View of. Before 1870. — Thus, the visible church, from 
the point of view here taken, is the Son of God himself, everlastingly 

18 



274 INFALLIBILITY 

manifesting himself among men in a human form, perpetually reno^ 
vated, and eternally young — the permanent incarnation of the same, 
as in Holy Writ, even the faithful are called " the body of Christ." 
Hence it is evident that the church, though composed of men, is yet not 
purely human. Nay, as in Christ the divinity and the humanity are to 
be clearly distinguished, though both are bound in unity; so is he in 
undivided entireness perpetuated in the church. The church, his per- 
manent manifestation, is at once divine and human — she is the union 
of both. He it is who, concealed under earthly and human forms, works 
in the church; and this is wherefore she has a divine and a human part 
in an undivided mode, so that the divine cannot be separated from the 
human, nor the human from the divine. Hence these two parts change 
their predicates. If the divine — the living Christ and his Spirit- — 
constitute undoubtedly that which is infallible, and eternally inerrable 
in the church; so also the human is infallible and inerrable in the 
same way, because the divine without the human has no existence 
for us; yet the human is not inerrable in itself, but only as the organ 
and as the manifestation of the divine. Hence we are enabled to 
conceive how so great, important, and mysterious a charge could have 
been intrusted to men. — '* Syinholism" John Adam Moehler, D. D. 
(R. C), p. 259. London: Thomas Baker, 1906. 

Note. — This book was first printed in 1832. — Eds. 

Infallibility, and the Catechism Before 1870.— Question. — Must 
not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible? 

Answer. — This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the 
Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless 
it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the bishops 
of the church. — " A Doctrinal Catechism," Rev. Stephen Keenan (pre- 
vious to 1870). New York: Edward Dunigan & Brother, 1851. 

Do we believe that, as a consequence of this primacy, the Pope is 
infallible and may decide as Christ himself, as the non-Catholics allege? 

No. The Pope possesses in controversies of faith only a judicial 
decision, which can only become an article of faith when the church 
gives its concurrence. — " Catechism of the Catholic Religion," Kraut- 
heimer, p. 87. 

Note. — As remarked by Dr. Dollinger ("The Pope and the Council," p. 76), 
" Up to the time of the Isidorian Decretals [about 850 a. d.] no serious attempt 
was made anywhere to introduce the Neo-Roman theory of infallibility." Even 
thereafter, and until the Vatican Council (1870), papal infallibility was not 
generally taught in Catholic catechisms, as is witnessed by the two questions and 
answers given under this heading. — Eds. 

Infallibility, Unlimited Poweb of. — It is the whole fulness of 
power over the collective church, as well as over every individual, 
claimed by the popes since Gregory VII, and expressed in the numerous 
bulls since TJnam Sanctam, which is henceforth to be believed by every 
Catholic, and acknowledged in public life. This power is boundless 
and incalculable; it can interfere everywhere, as Innocent III says, 
where sin is, can punish everybody, brooks no appeal, and is absolute 
arbitrariness; for the Pope, as Boniface VIII expressed it, carries every 
privilege in the shrine of his breast. As he has become infallible, he 
can, at any moment, with the one little word orhi (thereby addressing 
the whole church), make every statute, every doctrine, and every pos- 
tulate, an infallible and irrevocable article of faith. As opposed to him, 
there exists no right, no personal or corporative freedom, or, as the 
canonists say, "the tribunals of God and the Pope are one and thp 
same." — " Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees," Dr. J. J. 
Ign. von Dollinger (R. C), p. 102. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1891. 



INFAUilBLLITY 275 

Infallibility and the Infallible Book. — In one of the popular con- 
troversial works upon which Roman Catholics greatly rely (" The Faith 
of Our Fathers," by Cardinal Gibbons), the following argument is em- 
ployed, and the poor Protestant is shown that his " infallible Bible " is 
of no use whatever without an infallible interpreter. I will place in 
parallel columns the cardinal's argument turned against his own 
doctrine: 

The Cardinal to the Protestant The Protestant to the Roman Catholic 

" Let us see, sir, whether an in- " Let us see, my friend, whether 

fallible Bible is suflficient for you. an infallible pope is suflBcient for 
Either you are infallibly certain you. Either you are infallibly cer- 
that your interpretation of that tain that your interpretation of 
Bible is correct, or you are not. the meaning and extent of the 

dogma of infallibility is correct, or 

you are not. 

" If you are infallibly certain, " If you are infallibly certain, 

then you assert for yourself, and, then you assert for yourself, and, 
of course, for every reader of the of course, for every Roman Cath- 
Scripture, a personal infallibility olic, a personal infallibility. You 
which you deny to the Pope, and make every Roman Catholic his 
which we claim only for him. You own pope, 
make every man his own pope. 

" If you are not infallibly cer- 

" If you are not infallibly cer- tain that you understand the scope 
tain that you understand the true and meaning of the dogma of in- 
meaning of the whole Bible, — and fallibility, — and how can you 
this is a privilege you do not claim, make such a claim, when the great 
— then, I ask, of what use to you scholars and princes of the church 
is the objective infallibility of the differ about it so widely? — then, I 
Bible, without an infallible inter- ask, of what use to you is the 
preter? " — Page 155. dogma of infallibility without an 

infallible interpreter of its scope 
and intent? " 

The logical dilemma is a dangerous bull, for he will sometimes 
turn and gore his own master! — ''Romanism in the Light of History" 
Randolph H. McKim, D. D., pp. 1S9, 140. New York: O. P. Putnam's 
Sons, 1914. 

Infallibility, Based upon Fictions and Forgeries. — In a memo- 
rial, which has now been printed, a considerable number of Italian 
bishops demanded that the papal infallibility should be raised to an 
article of faith, because it had been taught by two men, both of whom 
were Italians and the pride of their nation, viz., those two bright shin- 
ing lights of the church, Thomas Aquinas and Alphonse of Liguori. 
Now, it was well known, and had already been noticed by Gratry as 
well as by myself, that Aquinas had been deluded by a long series of 
invented evidences, as he, indeed, in proof of his doctrine, only appeals 
to such forgeries, and never to the genuine passages of the Fathers or 
councils. And as far as Liguori is concerned, one glance at his writings 
is suflacient to show an experienced theologian that he handled forged 
passages in a much worse way than Aquinas. 

My reference to the fraud of which Thomas had been a victim, had 
caused a great sensation in Rome; the author of a paper that was at 
that time written in Rome, and directed against me, says that round 
about him it was received with cries of disapproval. It would accord- 
ingly have been unavoidably necessary to subject the matter to exami- 
nation. This examination, it is true, had it been comprehensive and 



276 INFALLIBILITY 

thorough, would have led very far; it would have produced the result 
that the theory of papal infallibility had been introduced into the church 
only by a long chain of purposeful fictions and forgeries, and had then 
been propagated and confirmed by violence, by suppression of the old 
doctrine, and by the manifold ways and means that are at the disposal 
of a sovereign. — " Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees,^* Dr. 
J. J. Ign. von Dollinger (R. G.J, pp. 94-96. Edinburgh: T. d T. Clark, 
1891. 

Infallibility, A Monstrosity. — The Allgemeine Augsburger Zeitung 
of August 15 [1870] delivered this judgment: " The monstrosity has 
taken place. The paramount party in the church has committed the 
crime of declaring to be a heresy the oldest principle of the Catholic 
faith, that revealed truth is made known only by the continuous consent 
of all churches, and, on the other hand, has declared as a dogma by the 
mouth of the unhappy Pius IX the crazy opinion of mere human origin 
that the Pope by himself is infallible." — " Handbook to the Controversy 
with ROTTie," Earl von Hase, Vol. I, pp. 311, 312. London: The Religious 
Tract Society, 1909. 

Infallibility, Difficulties of. — At this moment Roman theologians 
are at hopeless variance on three questions raised by this decree: 

1. When does the Pope speak ex cathedra? 

2. How is the fact to be known publicly? 

3. What is "that infallibility," in kind or degree, mentioned? 
And some of the difficulties which encompass the subject may be 

gathered from the subjoined extract from a pastoral of the hyper- 
ultramontane Cardinal Dechamps of Mechlin, dated Dec. 8, 1879, and 
intended to minimize the force of Leo XIIFs disapproval of his policy: 
" Infallibility is not what is alleged by the editors of certain papers, 
the members of certain parliaments, the professors of certain universi- 
ties, and sometimes also by lawyers and soldiers. No; for the Pope 
is not infallible when he expresses only his own ideas, but he is infal- 
lible when, as head of the church, he defines truths contained in the 
depository of revelation, the Scriptures and tradition. The Pope is not 
infallible when he judges purely personal questions; but he is so when 
he judges doctrinal questions affecting faith or morals; that is to say, 
revealed truth or revealed law, the Pope being infallible only when he 
rests on the testimony of God or revelation. The Pope is not infallible 
when he treats as a private doctor questions even of doctrine, but when 
he judges by virtue of his apostolic authority that a doctrine affecting 
revealed truth and revealed law ought to be held by the universal 
church." — "Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome," Rich- 
ard Frederick Littledale^ LL. D., D. C. L., pp. 186, 187. London: Society 
for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1905. 

Infallibility, Effect of. — One can scarcely open any book that 
attempts to deal with controversy by such a Roman Catholic as, for 
instance. Cardinal Manning, without being forced to observe how his 
faith in the infallibility of the present church makes him impenetrable 
to all arguments. Suppose, for example, the question in dispute is the 
Pope's personal infallibility, and that you object to him the case of 
Honorius: he replies. At most you could make out that it is doubtful 
whether Honorius was orthodox; but it is certain that a pope could not 
be a heretic. Well, you reply, at least the case of Honorius shows that 
the church of the time supposed that a pope could be a heretic. Not so, 
he answers, for the church now holds that a pope speaking ex cathedrd 
cannot err, and the church could not have taught differently at any 
other time. 



INTERDICT 277 

Thus, as long as any one really believes in the infallibility of his 
church, he is proof against any argument you can ply him with. Con- 
versely, when faith in this principle is shaken, belief in some other 
Roman Catholic doctrine is sure also to be disturbed; for there are some 
of these doctrines in respect of which nothing but a very strong belief 
that the Roman Church cannot decide wrongly will prevent a candid 
inquirer from coming to the conclusion that she has decided wrongly. 
This simplification, then, of the controversy realizes for us the wish of 
the Roman tyrant that all his enemies had but one neck. If we can but 
strike one blow, the whole battle is won. — " The InfalUdility of the 
Church," George Salmon, D. D., p. 18. New York: E. P. Button d- Go., 
1914. 

Interdict. — An interdict is a censure, or prohibition, excluding th» 
faithful from participation in certain holy things (D'Annibale, " Sum- 
mula," I, n. 369). These holy things are all those pertaining to Chris- 
tian worship, and are divided into three classes: (1) The divine oflBces, 
in other words, the liturgy, and in general all acts performed by clerics 
as such, and having reference to worship; (2) the sacraments, excepting 
private administrations of those that are of necessity; (3) ecclesiastical 
burial, including all funeral services. This prohibition varies in degree, 
according to the different kinds of interdicts to be enumerated: 

First, interdicts are either local or personal; the former affect ter- 
ritories or sacred buildings directly, and persons indirectly; the latter 
directly affect persons. Canonical authors add a third kind, the 
mixed interdict, which affects directly and immediately both persons 
and places; if, for instance, the interdict is issued against a town and 
its inhabitants, the latter are subject to it, even when they are outside 
of the town (arg. cap. xvi, "De sent, excomm." in VI°). Local interdicts, 
like personal interdicts, may be general or particular. A general local 
interdiot is one affecting a whole territory, district, town, etc., and this 
was the ordinary interdict of the Middle Ages; a particular local inter- 
dict is one affecting, for example, a particular church. A general per- 
sonal interdict is one falling on a given body or group of people as a 
class, e. g., on a chapter, the clergy or people of a town, of a community; 
a particular personal interdict is one affecting certain individuals as 
such, for instance, a given bishop, a given cleric. Finally, the interdict 
is total if the prohibition extends to all the sacred things mentioned 
above; otherwise it is called partial. — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 
VIII, art. " Interdict;' p. 73. 

Interdict, Defined. — Interdict : The prohibition of public worship 
and of the administration of the sacraments finterdictum officiorum 
divinorum), as an ecclesiastical penalty. An interdictum locale applies 
to a definite place or district; an interdictum personale, to definite 
persons. The former is the more frequent, especially the interdictum 
generale, which the medieval popes pronounced against whole countries 
in their conflicts with secular rulers. — The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclo- 
pedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VI, art. " Interdict;' p. 21. 

Interdict, Effect of. — The Pope by a stroke of the pen could pre- 
vent a whole nation, so it was believed, from approaching God, because 
he could prohibit priests from performing the usual sacramental acts 
which alone brought Him near. An interdict meant spiritual death to 
the district on which it fell, and on the medieval theory it was more 
deadly to the spiritual life than the worst of plagues, the black death 
itself, was to the body. An interdict made the plainest intellect see, 
understand, and shudder at the awful and mysterious powers which a 
mediatorial priesthood was said to possess. — "A History of the Refor- 
mation;' Thomas M. Lindsay, M. A., D. D., p. 440. New York: Charles 
Scribner's Sons, 1906. 



278 ISAIAH, PROPHECIES OF 

The interdict was directed against a city, province, or kingdom. 
Throughout the region under this ban the churches were closed; no 
bell could be rung, no marriage celebrated, no burial ceremony per- 
formed. The sacraments of baptism and extreme unction alone could 
be administered. — " Mediceval and Modern History," Philip Van Ness 
Myers, p. 117. Boston: Ginn & Co., revised, copyright 1919. 

Isaiah and His Prophecies. — The uniform tradition of the Jews 
is, that the sacred books were finally collected and arranged by Ezra 
under the guidance of divine inspiration, and that among them a promi- 
nent place, and for the most part the first place, has been always held 
by a book bearing the name of Isaiah. 

The name Isaiah is a compound word denoting the salvation of 
Jehovah, to which some imagine that the prophet himself alludes in 
chapter 8: 18. The abbreviated form ( rr^y^/r ) is never applied in 
Scripture to the prophet, though the rabbins employ it in titles and 
inscriptions. Both forms of the name are applied in the Old Testament 
to other persons, in all which cases the English version employs a dif- 
ferent orthography, viz. Jeshaiah or Jesaiah. In the New Testament 
our version writes the name Esaias, after the example of the Vulgate, 
varying slightly from the Greek 'Ho-atas IHesaiasI used both in the Sep- 
tuagint and the New Testament. To the name of the prophet we find 
several times added that of his father Amoz. Of his domestic circum- 
stances we know merely that his wife and two of his sons are men- 
tioned by himself (ch. 7: 3; 8: 3, 4) to which some add a third, as we 
shall see below. 

The only historical account of this prophet is contained in the 
book which bears his name, and in the parallel passages of Second 
Kings, which exhibit unequivocal signs of being from the hand of the 
same writer. The first sentence of Isaiah's own book assigns as the 
period of his ministry the four successive reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, 
Ahaz, and Hezekiah, one of the most eventful periods in the history 
of Judah. The two first reigns here mentioned were exceedingly pros- 
perous, although a change for the worse appears to have commenced 
before the death of Jotham, and continued through the reign of Ahaz, 
bringing the state to the very verge of ruin, from which it was not 
restored to a prosperous condition until long after the accession of Heze- 
kiah. During this period the kingdom of the ten tribes, which had 
flourished greatly under Jeroboam II, for many years contemporary 
with Uzziah, passed through the hands of a succession of usurpers, and 
was at length overthrown by the Assyrians, in the sixth year of Heze- 
kiah's reign over Judah. 

Among the neighboring powers, with whom Israel was more or less 
engaged in conflict during these four reigns, the most important were 
Damascene Syria, Moab, Edom, and the Philistines, who although resi- 
dent within the allotted bounds of Judah, still endeavored to maintain 
their position as an independent and a hostile nation. But the foreign 
powers which chiefly influenced the condition of Southwestern Asia 
during this period, were the two great empires of Assyria in the east 
and Egypt in the southwest. By a rapid succession of important con- 
quests, the former had suddenly acquired a magnitude and strength 
which it had not possessed for ages, if at all. Egypt had been subdued, 
at least in part, by Ethiopia; but this very event, by combining the 
forces of two great nations, had given unexampled strength to the Ethio- 
pian dynasty in Upper Egypt. The mutual jealousy and emulation be- 
tween this state and Assyria, naturally tended to make Palestine, which 
lay between them, a theater of war, at least at intervals, for many 



I 



ISAIAH, PROPHECIES OP 279 

years. It also led the kings of Israel and Judah to take part in the 
contentions of these two great powers, and to secure themselves by 
uniting, sometimes with Egypt against Assyria, sometimes with Assyria 
against Egypt. It was this inconstant policy that hastened the destruc- 
tion of the kingdom of the ten tribes, and exposed that of Judah to 
imminent peril. Against this policy the prophets, and especially Isaiah, 
were commissioned to remonstrate, not only as unworthy in itself, but 
as implying a distrust of God's protection, and indifference to the fun- 
damental law of the theocracy. The Babylonian monarchy began to 
gather strength before the end of this period, but was less conspicuous, 
because not yet permanently independent of Assyria. 

The two most remarkable conjunctures in the history of Judah dur- 
ing Isaiah's ministry are the invasion of the combined force of Syria 
and Israel in the reign of Ahaz, followed by the destruction of the 
kingdom of the ten tribes, and the Assyrian invasion in the fourteenth 
year of Hezekiah, ending in the miraculous destruction of Sennacherib's 
army and his own ignominious flight. The historical interest of this 
important period is further heightened by the fact that two of the most 
noted eras in chronology fall within it, to wit, the era of Nabonassar, 
and that computed from the building of Rome. 

The length of Isaiah's public ministry is doubtful. The aggregate 
duration of the four reigns mentioned in the title is above one hundred 
and twelve years; but it is not said that he prophesied throughout the 
whole reign either of Uzziah or Hezekiah. Some, it is true, have inferred 
that his ministry was coextensive with the whole reign of Uzziah, be- 
cause he is said to have written the history of that prince (2 Chron. 
26: 22), which he surely might have done, without being strictly his 
contemporary, just as he may have written that of Hezekiah to a certain 
date (2 Chron. 32: 32), and yet have died before him. Neither of these 
incidental statements can be understood as throwing any light upon the 
question of chronology. Most writers, both among the Jews and Chris- 
tians, understood the first verse of the sixth chapter as determining the 
year of King Uzziah's death to be the first of Isaiah's public ministry, 
ipp. 7-10] . . . 

If we i-eckon from the last year of Uzziah to the fourteenth of Heze- 
kiah, the last in which we find any certain historical traces of Isaiah, 
we obtain as the minimum of his prophetic ministry a period of forty- 
seven years, and this, supposing that he entered on it even at the age 
of thirty, would leave him at his death less than eighty years old. And 
even if it be assumed that he survived Hezekiah, and continued some 
years under his successor, the length of his life will after all be far 
less than that of Jehoiada, the high priest, who died in the reign of 
Joash at the age of 130 years. 2 Chron. 24: 15. 

The Jews have a positive tradition that he did die in the reign of 
Manasseh, and as victim of the bloody persecutions by which that king 
is said to have filled Jerusalem with innocent blood from one end to 
the other. 2 Kings 21: 16. This tradition is received as true by severaV 
of the Fathers, who suppose it to be clearly alluded to in Hebrews 11 : 37. 
[pp. 10, 11] — " Isaiah Translated and Explained,'' Joseph Addison Alex- 
ander. Vol. I, pp. ,7-11. New York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 1887. 

Isidorlan Decretals. — False Decretals, or the Decretals of the 
Pseudo-Isidore, is a name given to certain apocryphal papal letters 
contained in a collection of canon laws composed about the middle of 
the ninth century by an author who uses the pseudonym of Isidore 
Mercator, in the opening preface to the collection. . . . 

Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called papal letters are 



280 ISmORIAN DECRETALS 



forgeries. These documents, to the number of about one hundred, 
appeared suddenly in the ninth century and are nowhere mentioned 
before that time. The most ancient MSS. of them that we have are 
from the ninth century, and their method of composition, of which we 
shall treat later, shows that they were made up of passages and quota- 
tions of which we know the sources; and we are thus in a position to 
prove that the Pseudo-Isidore makes use of documents written long 
after the times of the popes to whom he attributes them. Thus it 
happens that popes of the first three centuries are made to quote docu- 
ments that did not appear until the fourth or fifth century; and later 
popes up to Gregory I (590-604) are found employing documents dating 
from the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, and the early part of the 
ninth. Then again there are endless anachronisms. The Middle Ages 
were deceived by this huge forgery, but during the Renaissance men of 
learning and the canonists generally began to recognize the fraud. — 
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, art. *' False Decretals," p. 773. 

Isidorian Decretals, Time of. — The era of the false decretals has 
not been precisely fixed; they have seldom been supposed, however, to 
have appeared much before 800. But there is a genuine collection of 
canons published by Adrian I in 785, which contains nearly the same 
principles, and many of which are copied by Isidore, as well as Charle- 
magne in his Capitularies. , . . Fleury (Hist. Eccl6s., t. ix. p. 500) seems 
to consider the decretals as older than this collection of Adrian; but I 
have not observed the same opinion in any other writer. — " History of 
Europe During the Middle Ages,'' Henry Hallam, Vol. II, p. 98, note, 
revised edition. New York and London: The Colonial Press, 1900. 

Isidorian Decretals, Time and Contents of. — About the middle of 
the ninth century appeared gradually an Isidorian collection, enlarged 
with many false decretals, whose object generally tended to counteract 
the oppression and the disorder of the clergy as well as ecclesiastical 
irregularities generally, which were the consequences of political di- 
visions and disturbances under the successors of Charlemagne, [pp. 
324, 325] . . . They must have been written between 829 and 845 in 
eastern Prance; and were first published, in a pretended Isidorian col- 
lection which Archbishop Riculf (786-814) is said to have brought from 
Spain, at Mainz, in the time of Archbishop Autcarius (826-847). They 
were soon circulated in various collections, appealed to without sus- 
picion in public transactions, and used by the popes, from Nicolaus I, 
immediately after he had become acquainted with them (864), without 
any opposition being made to their authenticity, and continued in 
undiminished reputation till the Reformation led to the detection of 
the cheat. On these false decretals were founded the pretensions of the 
popes to universal sway in the church; while the pretended donatio 
Constantini M. [donation of Constantine], a fiction of an earlier time, 
but soon adopted into them, was the first step from which the Papacy 
endeavored to elevate itself even above the state. — "A Compendium of 
Ecclesiastical History,'' Dr. John C. L. Gieseler, Vol. II, pp. 3S4, S25, 
330-336. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1848. 

V 

Isidorian Decretals, Contents of. — The compilation contains in 
Part I, besides a few other pieces, the fifty so-called Apostolic Canons 
received by the church (vid. I. 234, II. 11) and fifty-nine alleged, but all 
spurious, letters of the Roman bishops, from Clemens down to Melchia- 
des (d. 314), in chronological order; in Part II there follow, after a 
few other pieces (of which the Donatio Constantini ad Sylvestrum 
[Donation of Constantine to Sylvester] is the most important) the 



ISEDORIAN DECRETALS 281 

canons of many councils, beginning with that of Nicsea, essentially 
following the Hispana (falsification is only perceptible in one pas- 
sage) ; Part III gives the decretal letters of the Roman bishops 
from Sylvester to Gregory II (d. 731), of which thirty-five are 
spurious. The author has therefore admitted a number of already 
existing anonymous pieces, and the epistle of Clement to James 
(from the Clementine Homilies), the Donatio Constantini and the 
Constitutio Sylvestri, but has invented the most of the spurious papal 
letters, for doing which Rufinus, Cassiodorus, and the Liber Pontifi- 
calis must have supplied him with the historical substratum, and older 
ecclesiastical authors, acts of councils, etc., with the material. — " His- 
tory of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,'' Dr. Wilhelm Moeller, 
p. 161, Sd edition, translated hy Andrew Rutherfurd, B. D. New York: 
The Macmillan Company, 1910. 

Isidorian Decretals, Importance of. — The theory of the papal mon- 
archy over the church was not the result merely of grasping ambition 
and intrigue on the part of individual popes; it corresponded rather to 
the deep-seated belief of Western Christendom. This desire to unite 
Christendom under the Pope gave meaning and significance to the 
forged decretals bearing the name of Isidore, which formed the legal 
basis of the papal monarchy. This forgery did not come from Rome, but 
from the land of the Western Franks. It set forth a collection of pre- 
tended decrees of early councils and letters of early popes, which exalted 
the power of the bishops, and at the same time subjected them to the 
supervision of the Pope. The Pope was set forth as universal bishop of 
the church, whose confirmation was needed for the decrees of any coun- 
cil. The importance of the forgery lay in the fact that it represented 
the ideal of the future as a fact of the past, and displayed the papal 
primacy as an original institution of the church of Christ. 

The Papacy did not originate this forgery; but it made haste to 
use it. Pope Nicholas I claimed and exercised the powers of supreme 
ecclesiastical authority, and was happy in being able to exercise them 
in the cause of moral right. — " A History of the Papacy,'' M. Creighton, 
D. D., Vol. I, pp. 13, 14. London: Longmans, Green d Co., 1899. 

Isidorian Decretals, Purpose of. — To bring men to listen to, and 
receive, this new system of ecclesiastical law, which w;as so very dif- 
ferent from the ancient system, there was need of ancient documents 
and records, with which it might be enforced and defended against the 
assaults of opposers. Hence the Roman pontiffs procured the forgery, 
by their trusty friends, of conventions, acts of councils, epistles, and 
other documents; by which they might make it appear that from the 
earliest ages of the church, the Roman pontiffs possessed the same 
authority and power which they now claimed. Among these fraudu- 
lent supports of the Romish power, the so-called Decretal Epistles of 
the pontiffs of the first centuries, hold perhaps the first rank. They 
were produced by the ingenuity of an obscure man, who falsely assumed 
the name of Isidore, a Spanish bishop. Some vestiges of these fabri- 
cated epistles appeared in the preceding century; but they were first 
published and appealed to in support of the claims of the Roman 
pontiffs, in this [ninth] century, — " Institutes of Ecclesiastical History," 
Mosheim. book 3, cent. 9, part 2, chap. 2, sec. 8 (Vol. II, pp. 199, 200). 
London: Longman & Co., 1841. 

Isidorian Decretals, Object of. — In the middle of that century ■ — 
about 845 — arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian Decretals, which 
had results far beyond what its author contemplated, and gradually, 
but surely, changed the whole constitution and government of the 



282 ISIDORIAN DECRETALS 

church. It would be difficult to find in all history a second instance 
of so successful, and yet so clumsy a forgery. For three centuries past 
it has been exposed, yet the principles it introduced and brought into 
practice have taken such deep root in the soil of the church, and have 
so grown into her life, that the exposure of the fraud has produced no 
result in shaking the dominant system. 

About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest popes, together 
with certain spurious writings of other church dignitaries and acts of 
synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized 
upon by Pope Nicolas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in 
support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors. 
The immediate object of the compiler of this forgery was to protect 
bishops against their metropolitans and other authorities, so as to 
secure absolute impunity, and the exclusion of all influence of the 
secular power. This end was to be gained through such an immense 
extension of the papal power, that, as these principles gradually pene- 
trated the church, and were followed out into their consequences, she 
necessarily assumed the form of an absolute monarchy subjected to the 
arbitrary power of a single individual, and the foundation of the 
edifice of papal infallibility was already laid — first, by the principle 
that the decrees of every council require papal confirmation; secondly, 
by the assertion that the fulness of power, even in matters of faith, 
resides in the Pope alone, who is bishop of the universal church, while 
the other bishops are his servants. — " The Pope and the Council" Janus 
(Br. J. J. Ign. von Bollinger) (R. C), pp. 94-96. London: Rivingtons, 
1869. 

Isidorian Decretals, Use of, by Nicolas I. — When, in the mid 
die of the ninth century, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were first 
brought from beyond the Alps to Rome, they were almost immediately 
cited by Nicholas I in reply to an appeal of Hincmar of Rheims, in order 
to justify and extend the then advancing claims of the Roman chair. 
We must then either suppose that this Pope was really incapable of 
detecting a forgery, which no Roman Catholic writer would now think 
of defending, or else we must imagine that, in order to advance an 
immediate ecclesiastical object, he could condescend to quote a document 
which he knew to have been recently forged, as if it had been of 
ancient and undoubted authority. The former supposition is undoubt- 
edly most welcome to the common sense of Christian charity; but it is 
of course fatal to any belief in the personal infallibility of Pope Nicho- 
las I. — " The Bivinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," H. P. 
Liddon, M. A., '' Bampton Lectures" 1866, pp. 470, 471. London: Riv^ 
ingtons, 1869. 

Isidorian Decretals, One of the Pillars. — ^The Vatican and 
Lateran were an arsenal and manufacture, which, according to the 
occasion, have produced or concealed a various collection of false or 
genuine, of corrupt or suspicious, acts, as they tended to promote the 
interest of the Roman Church. Before the end of the eighth century, 
some apostolic scribe, perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the de- 
cretals, and the Donation of Constantine, the two magic pillars of the 
spiritual and temporal monarchy of the popes. — " The History of the 
Becline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Edward Gibbon, chap. 49, par. 
16 (Vol. V, pp. 33, 34). New York: Harper d Brothers. 

Isidorian Decretals, Influence of.— ^ No document has ever had a 
more remarkable history, or a more lasting infiuence on the relations 
of society, than that in which this feeling found expression, and which 
is known in modern times by the name of the False or Pseudo-Isidorian 



ISRAEL., CAMP OF 283 

Decretals. A collection of decretal letters made by Isidore of Seville 
had long been in great repute in the West, based on the earlier collec- 
tion made by Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century, containing the 
apostolic canons, the canons of the most important councils of the 
fourth and fifth centuries, and the decretal letters of the popes from 
the time of Siricius to that of Anastasius II. 

Suddenly there appeared at Mainz, in the time of Archbishop Aut- 
car, a collection purporting to be that of Isidore, brought, it was said, 
from Spain by Archbishop Riculf, but containing a series of documents 
hitherto unknown — fifty-nine letters and decrees' of the twenty oldest 
bishops of Rome from Clement to Melchiades, the Donation of Constan- 
tino, thirty-nine new decrees of popes and councils between the time of 
Sylvester and Gregory II, and the acts of several unauthentic councils. 
The chief points to which the spurious decrees were directed were, the 
exaltation of the episcopal dignity, the security of the clergy against the 
attacks of laymen, the limitation of the power of metropolitans, reducing 
them to be mere instruments of the Pope, and a consequent enlarge- 
ment of the privileges of the see of Rome. — " The See of Rome in the 
Middle Ages,'' Rev. Oswald J. Reicheh B. C. L.. M. A., pp. 89, 90. Lon- 
don: Longmans, Green & Co., 1870. 

Isles, Meaning of, in the Scriptures. — In the prophetical books of 
the Old Testament, and even in some of the historical ones (Gen. 10: 5; 
Esther 10: 1), the expression translated "the isles" or "the islands" 
designates primarily the shores and isles of European Greece — the 
" maritime tracts " which invited the colonist and the conqueror to 
brave the terrors of the deep, and journey westward from Asia in 
search of " fresh woods and pastures new." — " Egypt and Babylon," 
George Raiolinson, M. A., p. 213. New York: John B. Alden, 1885. 

Israel, Camp of. — The tents are arranged in four divisions, three 
tribes constituting a division, and occupying one side of the square 
under a common standard. The tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulon 
are on the east side, in front of the sanctuary, under the standard of 
Judah; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad are on the south, under the standard 
of Reuben; Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin are in the rear of the 
tabernacle, under the standard of Ephraim; Dan, Asher, and Naph- 
tali are on the north, under the standard of Dan. These standards 
were flags of different colors, each flag corresponding in color, as 
Jewish writers allege, with the stone in the pectoral of the high priest 
on which the name of the tribe represented by that flag is engraven. 

Each division is subdivided into three tribal camps, the standard- 
bearing tribe occupying the center, with an associate tribe on either 
wing. 

Within the hollow square formed by these four grand divisions 
of the Hebrews, and at a distance of three thousand feet from the inner- 
most tents, is the tabernacle of Jehovah, surrounded by the dwellings 
of its appointed attendants. — " History and Significance of the Sacred 
Tabernacle of the Hebrews,'' Edward E. Atwater, pp. 53, 54. New York: 
Dodd and Mead, 1875. 

Israel, Date of Captivity of. — The siege [of Samaria] commenced 
in Shalmaneser's fourth year, b. c. 724, and was protracted to his sixth, 
either by the efforts of the Egyptians, or by the stubborn resistance of 
the inhabitants. At last, in b. c. 722, the town surrendered, or was taken 
by storm; but before this consummation had been reached, Shalnjan- 



284 ISRAEL, IN AN INSCRIPTION 

eser's reign would seem to have come to an end in consequence of a 
successful revolution. — " The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient 
Eastern World," George Rawlinson, M. A., Vol. II, p. 137. New York: 
Dodd, Mead d Co. 

Israel, Mention of, in an Inscription, — In the fifth year of King 
Merneptah, who ruled from 1225-1215 b. c, and who is thought to be the 
Pharaoh of the exodus, he inscribed on a pillar an account of his 
wars and victories. The inscription concludes with the following 
poetic strophe:^ 

"The kings are overthrown, saying, 'Salaam! ' 

Not one holds up his head among the nine bows.- 

Wasted is Tehenu, ^ 

Kheta * is pacified, 

Plundered is the Canaan ^ with every evil, 

Carried off is Askelon, 

Seized upon is Gezer, 

Yenoam ® is made as a thing not existing. 

Israel is desolated, his seed is not; 

Palestine has become a widow for Egypt. 

All lands are united, they are pacified; 

Every one that is turbulent is bound by King Merneptah, 
who gives life like Ra every day." 
This inscription contains the only mention of Israel in a docu- 
ment of this age outside the Bible. It is, for that reason, of great 
importance. It should be noted that Israel is mentioned along with 
peoples and places in Palestine and Phoenicia. The Israel here referred 
to was not, accordingly, in Egypt. Israel, on the other hand, may not 
have been more than a nomadic people. The Egyptians used a certain 
" determinative " in connection with the names of settled peoples. 
That sign is here used with Tehenu, Kheta, Askelon, Gezer, and Yenoam, 
but not with Israel. 

As Merneptah has been supposed by many to be the Pharaoh in 
whose reign the exodus occurred, the mention of Israel here has some- 
what puzzled scholars, and different explanations of the fact have arisen. 
At least one scholar holds that the exodus occurred in Merneptah's 
third year, and that he afterward attacked the Hebrews. Others have 
supposed that not all the Hebrews had been in Egypt, but only the 
Joseph tribes. Still others have thought that the Leah tribes had 
made their exodus during the eighteenth dynasty, and that it was these 
with whom Merneptah fought, while the Rachel tribes made their 
exodus under the nineteenth dynasty. Opinions vary according to the 
critical views of different writers. All scholars would welcome more 
information on these problems. — ' ''Archeology and the Bible,'' George 
A. Barton, Ph. D., LL. D., pp. 311, 312. Philadelphia: American Sunday- 
School Union, copyright 1916. 

Israel, Represented in the Tabernacle. — Israel stood doubly rep- 
resented by the high priest in the presence of God. On the brilliant 
stones that rested on his shoulders, their names were engraved accord- 
ing to their birth. 



^ Taken from Breasted's ''Ancient Records,", Egypt, III, p. 264, ff. 
- That is, the foreign nations. 

■'' That is, Lybia, which lay to the west of the Egyptian Delta. 
*That is, the Hittites. 

s " The Canaan " refers to the land of Canaan, probably here Phoenicia. 
® Yenoam was a town situated at the extreme north of Galilee, just at the 
end of the valley between the two ranges of the Lebanon mountains. 



JACOB'S WELL 



285 



On the onyx on the 
left shoulder 

Gad 

Asher 

Issachar 

Zebulun 

Joseph 

Benjamin 



On the onyx on the 
right shoulder 
Reuben 
Simeon 
Levi 
Judah 
Dan 
Naphtali 



The stones on the breastplate, however, were arranged in four rows 
of three; and the names were engraved on them according to the 
tribes. 



THE FIRST BOW 



Carbuncle 
Zebulun 


Topaz 
Issachar 

THE SECOND ROW 


Sardius 
Judah 


Diamond 
Gad 


Sapphire 
Simeon 

THE THHSD ROW 


Emerald 
Reuben 


Amethyst 
Benjamin 


Agate 
Manasseh 

THE FOURTH ROW 


Ligure 
Ephraim 


Jasper 
Naphtali 


Onyx 
Asher 


Beryl 
Dan 



As the Hebrew language is written from right to left, the stones, 
with their inscribed names, would probably be arranged as here set 
forth. This is the order of the tribes, as they were arranged in their 
camp and in the march. — " The Tabernacle, the Priesthood, and the 
Offerings,'" Henry W. Soltau, pp. 206, 207. London: Morgan and Scott. 

Jacob's Well. — Jacob passes on in peace to Shechem, again prob- 
ably following the route of Abraham. He buys a parcel of ground and 
erects an " altar " — not a menhir this time. It seems somewhat strange 
that nowhere in the Old Testament is it stated that Jacob dug a well 
here, and yet the distinct statement of the Samaritan woman establishes 
the fact. St. John 4 : 12. All traditions — of Jews, Samaritans, Mos- 
lems, and Christians — agree in this. The whole history of Jacob shows 
his caution. Buying the field, he would have the right to dig a well, 
and so would avoid all the quarrels his father had had; and his practical 
wisdom was never more shown than in thus securing a possession in this 
the garden of Canaan. It became his homestead, while his flocks could 
roam on the plain now called El Mtikhnah. 

Many springs exist all around, but he feared trouble, lest the 
natives should quarrel with his sons when the flocks and herds wanted 
water. This well is probably the deepest in Palestine. Originally it 
is believed to have been 150 feet deep. Rubbish has, however, fallen 
in; but when I was camped there in 1875, on dropping a stone down, it 
was many seconds before I could hear the splash. Three granite col- 
umns were lying on the ground, and there was a ruined arch. The 
masonry extends down the well about twenty feet; after that the shaft 
is' bored through the rock. The Palestine Exploration Fund, in 1879, 
proposed to clear it of rubbish and build a low stone wall around it. 
Plans were drawn. The design was frustrated, and the site was bought 
by the Greek Church. 



286 JEHOVAH, ORIGIN OF THE NAME 

However, in 1881 a most interesting discovery was made by Rev. 
C. W. Barclay. In a letter to the Palestine Fund, 17th May, he relates 
how he had often visited the place. But on this occasion, with his wife, 
they clambered down into the vault, when he chanced to notice, a few 
feet from the opening, a dark crack between the stones. They removed 
some stones and earth, and were then able to trace part of a curved 
aperture in a large slab of stone. They cleared more earth and stones, 
and soon distinguished the circular mouth of the well, though it was 
blocked by an immense mass of stone. Calling in aid two men who 
were looking on, with considerable labor they managed to remove it, 
and the opening of the well was clear! There was the ledge on which, 
doubtless, the Saviour rested; there were the grooves in the stone caused 
by the ropes by which the water pots were drawn up. The next day 
they completely laid bare the massive stone which forms the mouth. It 
is of hard limestone in fair preservation. The exact measurements are 
given. A boy was lowered to the bottom. It was found to be sixty-seven 
feet, and then there was a large accumulation of rubbish. In 1866 it 
was seventy-five feet, and Captain Anderson, of the Survey party, had a 
narrow escape, for he fainted away, and was insensible for some time 
on the stones at the bottom. The difference of depth shows what amount 
of rubbish had been thrown in in those few years. 

According to Jerome, the noble Lady Paula found a church round 
about Jacob's well, which she entered. The Bordeaux Pilgrim, who vis- 
ited Gerizim 333 a. d., speaks of " plane trees," and a bath supplied with 
water from the well, but no church, though other writers do mention it. 
Bishop Arculf, in 700 a. d., saw the church and sketched it. It was, 
however, destroyed before the Crusaders' time. Doubtless, the heaps of 
ruins, which in 1875 I found scattered about, belonged to that ancient 
church. — " The Bible and Modern Discoveries," Henry A. Harper, pp. 
33-35. London: Printed for the Gonmmittee of the Palestine Exploration 
Fund "by Alexander P. Watt, 1891. 

Jehovah, Origin of the Name in English. — When God appointed 
Moses to his mission of leading his enslaved brethren out of Egypt, he 
at the same time revealed himself by the name of " Jehovah," the 
special name by which he was henceforth to be known to the children of 
Israel. It is unfortunate that this sacred name has descended to the 
readers of the Authorized Version of the Old Testament in a corrupt 
and barbarous form. The Hebrew alphabet was designed to express 
consonants only, not vowels; these were supplied by the reader from his 
knowledge of the language and its pronunciation. As long as Hebrew 
was still spoken, there was little difficulty in doing this; but the case 
was changed when it ceased to be a living language. A traditional pro- 
nunciation of the sacred records was preserved in the synagogues; 
but it necessarily differed in many respects from the pronunciation 
which had actually been once in use, and was itself in danger of being 
forgotten or altered. To avoid such a danger, therefore, the so-called 
Masoretes, or Jewish scribes, in the sixth century after the Christian 
era, invented a system of symbols which should represent the pronun- 
ciation of the Hebrew of the Old Testament as read, or rather chanted, 
at the time in the great synagogue of Tiberias in Palestine. It is in 
accordance with this Masoretic mode of pronunciation that Hebrew is 
now taught. But there was one word which the Masoretes of Tiberias 
either could not or would not pronounce. This was the national name of 
the God of Israel. Though used so freely in the Old Testament, it had 
come to be regarded with superstitious reverence before the time when 
the Greek translation of the Septuagint was made, and in this transla- 



JEHOVAH, IVIEANING OF 287 

tion, accordingly, the word Kyrios, " Lord," is substituted for it wher- 
ever it occurs. The New Testament writers naturally followed the cus- 
tom of the Septuagint and of their age, and so also did the Masoretes 
of Tiberias. Wherever the holy name was met with, they read in place 
of it Adonai, " Lord," and hence, when supplying vowel symbols to the 
text of Old Testament they wrote the vowels of Adonai under the 
four consonants, Y H V H, which composed it. This simply meant 
that Adonai was to be read wherever the sacred name was found. In 
ignorance of thi« fact, however, the scholars who first revived the 
study of Hebrew in modern Europe imagined that the vowels of Adonai 
(a or e, o, and a) were intended to be read along with the consonants 
below which they stood. The result was the hybrid monster Yehovdh. 
In passing into England the word became even more deformed. In 
German the sound of y is denoted by the symbol j, and the German 
symbol, but with the utterly different English pronunciation attached 
to it, found its way into the English translations of the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures. 

There are two opinions as to what was the actual pronunciation 
of the sacred name while Hebrew was still a spoken language. On 
the one hand, we may gather from the contemporary Assyrian monu- 
ments that it was pronounced Yahu. Wherever an Israelitish name is 
met with in the cuneiform inscriptions which, like Jehu or Hezekiah, 
is compounded with the divine title, the latter appears as Yahu, Jehu 
being Yahua, and Hezekiah Ehazaki-yahu. Even according to the 
Masoretes it must be read Yeho (that is, Ydhu) when it forms part of 
a proper name. The early Gnostics, moreover, when they transcribed 
it in Greek characters, wrote lad (that is, YaJio). On the other hand, 
the four consonants, Y H V H, can hardly have been pronounced other- 
wise than as Yahveh, and this pronunciation is supported by the two 
Greek writers Theodoret and Epiphanios, who say that the word was 
sounded Yave. The form Yahveh. however, is incompatible with the 
form Yahu (Yeho), which appears in proper names; and it has been 
maintained that it is due to one of those plays on words, of which 
there are so many examples in the Old Testament. The spelling with a 
final "h" was adopted, it has been supposed, in order to remind the 
reader of the Hebrew verb which signifies " to be," and to which there 
seems to be a distinct allusion in Exodus 3: 14. — "Fresh Light from 
the Ancient Monuments" A. H. Saycei, M. A., pp. 61-64. London: The 
Religious Tract Society, 1890. 

Jehovah, Meani^^g of. — ^This title occurs about 7,000 times, but 
it is generally rendered "the Lord," and only occasionally "Jehovah." 
The signification is. He that always was, that always is, and that ever 
is to come. In Revelation 1: 8 it is thus translated: " I am Alpha and 
Omega, the beginning and the ending," saith Jehovah, " which is, and 
which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." This title speaks 
of him who is "the same yesterday" (past), "today" (present), "and 
forever" (future). Heb. 13:8. "Who created" (past) "all things" 
(Col. 1: 16); who "upholds" (present) "all things" (Heb. 1: 3); and 
"for whom" (future) "all things were created" (Col. 1:16). It 
speaks of him who in the past " appeared to put away sin," and now 
" appears in the presence of God for us," and will yet " appear a second 
time apart from sin unto salvation." Heb. 9: 24-28. 

Lord, printed in our Bibles with capitals, is the translation of 
Jehovah; and Lord, in small letters, is the translation of the word 
Adon, which means Lord, Master, Possessor, or Proprietor. This dis- 
tinction is important. (See Ps, 90: 1.) 



288 JEPHTHAH'S VOW 

" Jehovah " expresses the covenant relationship of God with his 
people. See Exodus 6 : 2-8, where God speaks unto Moses, saying, " I 
am Jehovah," " I have established my covenant," " I have remembered 
my covenant," " I will bring you out," " I will rid you of bondage," 
" I will redeem you," " I will take you to me," " I will be to you 
a God," " I will bring you in," " I will give you the land for a heritage," 
" I am Jehovah." As one has said, " It was all that he would do, as 
founded upon what he was." 

The question has sometimes been asked, " How can Exodus 6 : 3 
be true, when we read of Abram in Genesis 15 addressing the Lord as 
' Lord God ' (Adohnay Jehovah) ? " To this we can only reply, that 
God's name in relationship to the patriarchs was El Shaddai (God Al- 
mighty), just as now his name to us is " Father." Jehovah was not the 
special name of God to Abram as it was to Israel in Exodus 6: 3, 
whereas God Almighty was. Bishop Wordsworth thus writes on this 
subject: " The name Jehovah is a word of higher import (than Elohim); 
it is derived from the old verb havah, to be, and signifies self-eanst- 
ence. Its proper meaning seems to be 'he is' (see Gesenius, p. 337). 
It was rarely uttered by the Jews, on account of their reverence and 
awe for the Divine Being, the Everlasting, . . , but in its stead, they 
uttered the word Adonai" 

The name, so precious to the children of God — Jesus — means 
" Jehovah the Saviour." It is the Greek form of Joshua, which itself 
is a contraction of Jehoshua, that is, " the help of Jehovah," or " the 
salvation of Jehovah," or " Jehovah the Saviour." This name was given 
by divine command (see Matt. 1: 21), and it is his only name, all 
other names being titles. — " Jehovah Titles," James Sprunt, pp. 11-13. 
London: George Stoneman. 

Jephthah's Vow. — The story of Jephthah's vow is celebrated by 
artist and poet, and most writers say: " There is no sadder story in the 
Bible;" but have not some considerations been overlooked? 

1. Jephthah was a believer in Jehovah. He says to the elders when 
they come to request him to be leader: " The Lord deliver them before 
me." Again: "The Lord shall be witness between us," in his message 
to the king of Ammon; " And the Lord the Grod of Israel delivered Sihon 
into the hand of Israel:" "The Lord our God;" "The Lord the judge 
be judge this day." He contrasts Jehovah with Chemosh. " Then the 
Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah." From his message he was 
evidently well acquainted with the Mosaic books. He would know that 
a human sacrifice was an abomination to Jehovah. Lev. 18: 21; 20: 2-5. 
Was it therefore likely he would propose a human sacrifice? 

2. He would know by the Mosaic law that burnt sacrifices were to 
be males: "a male without blemish." Lev. 1: 3. When the Lord says: 
"All the first-born are mine," "mine they shall be" (Num. 3: 12, 13), 
there is no suggestion ever made that they were offered as burnt sac- 
rifices: they were dedicated to God. Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was 
not a literal burnt offering; he was redeemed. Jephthah says: "What- 
soever Cometh forth of the doors of my house." He is met by his only 
child — a maiden! She the only chance of his name and blood to be 
perpetuated. This is the agony to him: that his name and race must 
die with himself. As for the daughter, she asks to bewail her virginity. 
Why? Because now she never could be the mother of the hoped-for 
Messiah — that hope which from the earliest time had ever been the 
most cherished dream of every Hebrew woman; to fulfil the promise 
" that the seed of the woman should ' bruise the serpent's head.' " 
Gen. 3: 15. The daughter asks for two months to bewail her virginity; 
she is celebrated four times every year by the maidens. Would they 



JERUSALEM, SIEGES OF 289 

have praised a human sacrifice? Remember her father was no wor- 
shiper of Molech. He offers her as a spiritual offering — a lifelong 
virginity. Like those Gibeonites in the days of Joshua, whose lives 
were spared, she would be a servant in the sanctuary all the days of 
her life. 

And lastly, where was the altar to Jehovah on which she could be 
sacrificed? Altars in plenty to Chemosh; but neither Jephthah nor she 
worshiped that false god! 

Jephthah dies. He had known no father's home; he had been 
"driven out" (Judges 11: 2), and no child, no grandchildren, are there 
to cheer him in his old age, or close his dying eyes. Would his name 
have been included by Paul in Hebrews 11: 32, as one of those of whom 
it is said, by " faith " they did their great works, and " wrought right- 
eousness," if he had slain his daughter? Impossible! — " The Bible and 
Modern Discoveries,"" Henry A. Harper, pp. 192-194. London: Printed 
for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund hy Alexander P. 
Watt, 1891. 

Jerusalem, Sieges of. — The following is a complete list of the 
sieges [of Jerusalem] : 

1. By the tribe of Judah against the Jebusites, about 1443 b. c. 
This was some 700 years before Rome was founded. It was only par- 
tial, for in David's reign we still find the Jebusites occupying the cita- 
del (the future Zion). The solemn words in Judges 1: 8, describing 
this first siege, vividly portray the after history of the city. 

2. By David against the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5: 6-10; 1 Chron. 11: 
4-7), about 960 b. c. 

3. By Shishak king of Egypt, against Rehoboam (1 Kings 14: 25, 
26; 2 Chron. 12: 2-12), about 875 b. c. To this there was only a feeble 
resistance; and the temple was plundered. 

4. By the Philistines, Arabians, and Ethiopians, against Jehoram 
(2 Chron. 21: 16, 17), about 794 b. c. In this siege the royal palace was 
sacked, and the temple again plundered. 

5. By Jehoash king of Israel, against Amaziah king of Judah (2 
Kings 14: 13, 14), about 739 b. c. The wall was partially broken down, 
and the city and temple pillaged. 

6. By Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, against Ahaz 
(2 Chronicles 28), about 630 b. c. The city held out, but Ahaz sought 
the aid of Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, for whom he stripped the 
temple. 

7. By Sennacherib king of Assyria, against Hezekiah (2 Kings 
18: 13-16), about 603 b. c. In this case the siege was raised by a divine 
interposition, as foretold by Isaiah the prophet. 

8. By Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, against Jehoiakim (2 
Chron. 36: 6, 7), about 496 b. c, when the temple was partly pillaged. 

9. By Nebuchadnezzar again, against Jehoiachin (2 Chron. 36: 10), 
about 489 b. c, when the pillage of the temple was carried further, and 
10,000 people carried away. 

10. By Nebuchadnezzar, against Zedekiah (2 Chron. 36: 17-20), 
478-477 b. c. In this case the temple was burnt with fire, and the city 
and temple lay desolate for fifty years. 

11. By Ptolemy Soter king of Egypt, against the Jews, 320 b. c. 
More than 100,000 captives were taken to Egypt. 

12. By Antiochus the Great, about 203 b, c. 

13. By Scopus, a general of Alexander, about 199 b. c, who left 
a garrison. 

14. By Antiochus IV, surnamed Epiphanes, 168 b. c. This was the 
19 



290 JERUSALEM, AVITHDRAWAL FROM 

worst siege since the tenth. The whole city was pillaged, 10,000 cap- 
tives taken, the walls destroyed, the altar defiled, ancient manuscripts 
perished, the finest buildings were burned, and the Jews were forbid- 
den to worship there. Foretold Daniel 11. 

15. By Antiochus V, surnamed Eupator, against Judas Maccabaeus, 
about 162 B. c. This time honorable terms were made, and certain 
privileges were secured. 

16. By Antiochus VII, surnamed Sidetes, king of Syria, against 
John Hyrcanus, about 135 b. c. 

17. By Hyrcanus (son of Alex. Jannaeus) and the priest Aristobulus. 
The siege was raised by Scaurus, one of Pompey's lieutenants, about 
65 B. c. 

18. By Pompey against Aristobulus, about 63 b. c. The machines 
were moved on the Sabbath, when the Jews made no, resistance. Only 
thus was it then reduced; 12,000 Jews were slain. [Antigonus, son of 
Aristobulus, with a Parthian army, took the city in 40 b. c; but there 
was no siege, the city was taken by a sudden surprise.] 

19. Herod with a Roman army besieged the city in 39 b. c. for five 
months. 

20. By Titus, a. d. 69. The second temple (Herod's) was burnt, 
and for fifty years the city disappeared from history, as after the tenth 
siege. Jer. 20: 5. 

21. The Romans had again to besiege the city in a. d. 135 against 
the false Messiah, Bar-Cochebas, who had acquired possession of the 
ruins. The city was obliterated, and renamed -^Elia Capitolina, and a 
temple was erected to Jupiter. For 200 years the city passed out of 
history, no Jews being permitted to approach it. This siege was fore- 
told in Luke 19: 43, 44; 21: 20-24. 

22. After 400 years of so-called Christian colonization, Chosroes the 
Persian (about a. d. 559) swept through the country; thousands were 
massacred, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed. 
The emperor Heraclius afterward defeated him, and restored the city 
and the church. 

23. The caliph Omar, in a. d. 636-637, besieged the city against 
Heraclius. It was followed by capitulation on favorable terms, and 
the city passed into the hands of the Turks, in whose hands it remains 
to the present day. [Jerusalem was captured by the British forces in 
1917.— Eds.] 

24. Afdal, the vizier of the caliph of Egypt, besieged the two rival 
factions of Moslems, and pillaged the city in 1098. 

25. In 1099 it was besieged by the army of the first Crusade. 

26. In 1187 it was besieged by Saladin for seven weeks. 

27. The wild Kharezmian Tartar hordes, in 1244, captured and 
plundered the city, slaughtering the monks and priests. — " The Com- 
panion Bible,'" Part 11, ''Joshua to Job" Appendix, pp. 76, 77. London: 
Oxford University Press. 

Note. — The system of chronology from which quite a number of these 
dates are derived, varies in some cases about one hundred years from the 
chronology usually accepted. — Eds. 

Jenisalem, Cestius's Withdrawal from. — It was during the Feast 
of Tabernacles, in the year 66 a. d., that Cestius Callus came up to 
assault Jerusalem. (The dates are so precise that we can exactly assign 
the several transactions to their proper days in the Julian calendar.) 
On the 22d of Hyperberetasus, or Tisri, the last day of the Feast of Tab- 
ernacles, A. D. 66, the Jews having notice of Cestius's approach, desisted 
from the solemnities of that great day of the feast, rushed to arms, 
poured out tumultuously from the city, and attacked the Roman legions 



JESUITS, SERVICES OF 291 

at Gabao or Gibeon. The assault was successful. Cestius, almost panic- 
stricken, remained on the spot three days, and after this, three days 
more at Scopus. On the 30th of Hyperberetaeus — 8 October, he came up 
to the city, and wasted five days in unsuccessful attempts. After the 
last assault, when he was on the very point of success, when a strong 
party within the walls was just about to open the gates to him, and so 
in all human probability an end would have been put to the war, under 
the influence of some unaccountable panic he precipitately drew off his 
forces and made a tumultuous retreat to Scopus. " Had he onlyva little 
longer persisted in the assault, he would have taken the city immedi- 
ately. But, methinks, God, who now on account of the wicked had 
turned himself away even from his holy place, hindered the war from 
coming that day to an end." (B. J., ii, 19, 6.) This, it appears, occurred 
on the 5th Dius = 13th October. From Scopus, Cestius continued his re- 
treat to Gabao, and thence on the third day, seeing the numbers of the 
enemy increasing, he determined to retreat still farther northward, and 
accordingly, with the sacrifice of most of the incumbrances, engines, and 
heavy armor, rapidly retraced his steps through the defiles, and with 
immense difficulty and great loss gained Bethhoron at nightfall, 8 Dius 
r= 16th October. That same night he stole a march upon the enemy, and 
escaped undiscovered until the morning. The Jews pursued him as far 
as Antipatris without overtaking him, and thence returned in triumph 
to Jerusalem. " These things were done on the 8th Dius, in the 12th 
year of the reign of Nero." 

Unquestionably this is the crisis of the rebellion, the fatal epoch of 
the last times of Jerusalem. " Immediately after this catastrophe, many 
of the Jews of rank forsook the city, as men swim away from a drown- 
ing ship." "Then they which had pursued Cestius returned to Jeru- 
salem, and being assembled in the temple, elected them generals for 
the war." 

It was in the year 70, and at the Passover (13th April), when mul- 
titudes of Jews from all parts of the world were gathered into Jerusalem 
for the feast, and precisely three and one half Jewish years from the 
Feast of Tabernacles at which Cestius came up, that Titus and the Roman 
armies arrived before Jerusalem. — " Chronology of the Holy Scriptures,'' 
Henry Browne, M. A., pp. 387, 388. London: John W. Parker, 1844. 

Jesuits, Theib Services to the Papacy. — When the Jesuit order 
came into being, a fatal hour had struck for the Papacy. The move- 
ment originated by Luther, in connection with other causes, had caused 
the ship of St. Peter to rock dangerously. A world with a new philos- 
ophy of life was coming into view, which no longer recognized the 
Pope-God of the Middle Ages, the sovereign lord of the whole world in 
that capacity. Ultramontanism which, since Gregory VII, had been 
firmly established in its seat, and was ruling the world, in particular 
the political world, from Rome, under religious forms, felt the onset 
of the new age, whence the cry, " Free from Rome," was already 
resounding. 

Then the threatened Papacy found in the Jesuit order an ultra- 
montane auxiliary regiment of extraordinary power and pertinacity. 
The papal dominion was to be re-established. The ultramontane system, 
with its secular and political kernel disguised under a garb of religion, 
was concentrated, as it were, in the constitutions of the Jesuit order, 
and even more in its well-calculated labors directed from central points. 
Words and deeds, teaching and example, of the new order, were a single 
great propaganda for the ultramontane Papacy. The doctrine of the 
" direct " — that is, the immediate dominion of the vicar of Christ over 



292 JESUITS, WORK OP 

the whole world — had become untenable; the Jesuit order (e. g., 
Bellarmin and Suarez) replaced it completely by the doctrine of the 
" indirect " power. 

There is not the least fraction of religion in this doctrine. Every- 
thing In it is irreligious and anti-Christian, but it is quite specially 
calculated for religious display, for it makes a pretense of God's king- 
dom, which embraces this world and the next, which tolerates only one 
supreme ruler — God and his vicar — and thus makes this comprehen- 
sive political universal dominion an acceptable, even desirable, religious 
demand in the eyes of Catholics. The love of dominion implanted in 
the Jesuit order finds the greatest possibility of development in this 
doctrine, hence its never-resting zeal in trying to raise the indirect 
power of the Papacy to a fundamental dogma of church policy. The 
order, as such, cannot openly aspire to universal dominion; however 
powerful its equipment may be, it must always appear as a mere aux- 
iliary member, a subordinate part of the Catholic whole, the Papal 
Church; the more it furthers the temporal political power of Rome and 
extends the religious belief in its justification among men, the more 
political power will it attain itself; the Papacy and its indirect power 
serve but as a screen behind which are concealed the Jesuit order and 
its aspirations for power. By its zeal and skill it becomes an indis- 
pensable servant of the Papacy, and thus acquires direct dominion over 
the wearers of the papal crown, and. through them indirect dominion 
over the whole world. 

Hence the continuous and detailed occupation with politics, for- 
bidden by the constitutions as unreligious, but which became its most 
comprehensive sphere of activity by the religious road of confession. 

It was this very political activity of the order which let loose the 
storm against it. And, as I have already shown, it was in the first 
instance the Catholic courts, at which the Jesuit confessor had carried 
on his religious activity for centuries, which demanded more and more 
eagerly the suppression of the order, and finally attained it from Clem- 
ent XIV. — ''Fourteen Years a Jesuit" Count Paul von Hoensbroech, 
Vol. II, pp. 427-429. London: Gassell & Co., 1911. 

Jesuits, Work of, Explained from the Roman Catholic Stand- 
point. — The society was not founded with the avowed intention of 
opposing Protestantism. Neither the papal letters of approbation nor 
the constitutions of the order mention this as the object of the new 
foundation. When Ignatius began to devote himself to the service of 
the church, he had probably not heard even the names of the Protestant 
Reformers. His early plan was rather the conversion of Mohammedans, 
an idea which, a few decades after the final triumph of the Christians 
over the Moors in Spain, must have strongly appealed to the chivalrous 
Spaniard. 

The name " 8ocietas Jesu " had been borne by a military order 
approved and recommended by Pius II in 1459, the purpose of which 
was to fight against the Turks and aid in spreading the Christian faith. 
The early Jesuits were sent by Ignatius first to pagan lands or to Cath- 
olic countries; to Protestant countries only at the special request of 
the Pope; and to Germany, the cradleland of the Reformation, at the 
urgent solicitation of the imperial ambassador. From the very begin- 
ning the missionary labors of Jesuits among the pagans of India, Japan, 
China, Canada, Central and South America were as important as their 
activity in Christian countries. 

As the object of the society was the propagation and strengthening 
of the Catholic faith everywhere, the Jesuits naturally endeavored to 
counteract the spread of Protestantism. They became the main instru- 



JESUITS AS POLITICIANS 293 

ments of the counter-Reformation; the reconquest of southern and 
western Germany and Austria for the church, and the preservation of 
the Catholic faith in France and other countries were due chiefly to 
their exertions. — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, art. " Society 
of Jesus" p. 81. 

Jesuits AS Politicians. — It was chiefly as politicians that the Jes- 
uits have won, and probably deserved, an infamous renown in history. 
The order was aggressive and ardent — full of grand schemes for the 
extirpation of heretics and the subjugation of England and the hardy 
North. Every member of the mighty league had sworn to give his life, 
if necessary, for the advancement of the faith; was ready to fly at a 
sudden notice to the farthest lands at the bidding of his superior or 
the Pope; and perhaps might merit some frightful punishment at home 
did he not obey his commander to the uttermost. The irrevocable vow 
and the long practice in abject submission made the Jesuits the most 
admirable instruments of crime. In the hands of wicked popes like 
Gregory XIII, or cruel tyrants like Philip II, they were never suffered 
to rest. Their exploits are among the most wonderful and daring in 
history. They are more romantic than the boldest pictures of the 
novelist; more varied and interesting than the best-laid plots of the 
most inventive masters. No Arabian narrator nor Scottish wizard 
could have imagined them; no Shakespeare could have foreseen the 
strange mental and political conditions that led the enthusiasts on in 
their deeds of heroism and crime. Jesuits penetrated, disguised, into 
England when death was their punishment if discovered; hovered in 
strange forms around the person of Elizabeth, whose assassination was 
the favorite aim of Philip II and the Pope; reeled through the streets 
of London as pretended drunkards; hid in dark closets and were fed 
through quills; and often, when discovered, died in horrible tortures 
with silent joy. The very name of the new and active society was a 
terror to all the Protestant courts. A single Jesuit was believed to be 
more dangerous than a whole monastery of Black Friars. A Campion, 
Parsons, or Garnet filled all England with alarm. And in all that long 
struggle which followed between the North and the South, in which the 
fierce Spaniards and Italians made a desperate assault upon the re- 
bellious region, strove to dethrone or destroy its kings, to crush the 
rising intellect of its people, or to extirpate the hated elements of re- 
form, the historians uniformly point to the Jesuits as the active agents 
in every rebellion, and the tried and unflinching instruments of un- 
sparing Rome. 

A Jesuit penetrated in strange attire to Mary Queen of Scots, and 
lured her to her ruin. Another sought to convert or dethrone a king 
of Sweden. One conveyed the intelligence to Catherine and Charles 
IX that produced a horrible massacre of the reformers. One traveled 
into distant Muscovy to sow the seeds of endless war. Mariana, 
an eminent Jesuit, published a work defending regicide which was 
faintly condemned by the order, and soon Henry III fell by the assas- 
sin's blow; William of Orange, pursued by the endless attempts of 
assassins, at last received the fatal wound; Elizabeth was hunted down, 
but escaped; Henry IV, after many a dangerous assault, died, it was 
said, by the arts of the Jesuits; James I and his family escaped by a 
miracle from the plot of Fawkes and Garnet; while many inferior char- 
acters of this troubled age disappeared suddenly from human sight, or 
were found stabbed and bleeding in their homes. All these, frightful 
acts the men of that period attributed to the fatal vow of obedience. 

The Jesuit was the terror of his times. Catholics abhorred and 
shrunk from, him with almost as much real aversion as Protestants. 



294 JESUITS, PROBABILISM 

The universities and the clergy feared and hated the unscrupulous order. 
The Jesuit was renowned for his pitiless cruelty. The mild Franciscans 
and Benedictines, and even the Spanish Dominicans, could not be relied 
upon by the popes and kings, and were cast contemptuously aside; 
while their swift and ready rivals sprung forward at the slightest inti- 
mation of their superior, and, with a devotion to their chief at Rome 
not surpassed by that of the assassins of the Old Man of the Mountains, 
flung themselves in the face of death. — " Historical Studies,'' Eugene 
Lawrence, pp. 128, 129. New York: Harper tf Brothers. 1876. 

Jesuits, Probabilism. — The doctrine of probabilism was not orig- 
inated by the Jesuits, but was wrought out by their writers during the 
seventeenth century with more minuteness than by earlier Roman 
Catholic writers. According to this teaching one is at liberty to follow 
a probable opinion, i. e., one that has two or three reputable Catholic 
writers in its favor, against a more probable or a highly probable opin- 
ion in whose favor a multitude of the highest authorities concur. To 
justify any practice, however immoral it might be commonly esteemed, 
a few sentences from Catholic writers sufficed, and these were often 
garbled. Some Jesuits and some popes repudiated this doctrine. In 
1680 Gonzales, an opponent of the doctrine, was made general of the 
society through papal pressure; but he failed to purge the society of 
probabilism, and came near being deposed by reason of his opposition. 
Another antiethical device widely approved and employed by members 
of the society is mental reservation or restriction, in accordance with 
which, when important interests are at stake, a negative or a modifying 
clause may remain unuttered which would completely reverse the state- 
ment actually made. This principle justified unlimited lying when 
one's interests or convenience seemed to require. Where the same word 
or phrase has more than one sense, it may be employed in an unusual 
sense with the expectation that it will be understood in the usual 
(amphibology). Such evasions may be used under oath in a civil 
court. 

Equally destructive of good morals was the teaching of many 
Jesuit casuists that moral obligation may be evaded by directing the 
intention when committing an immoral act to an end worthy in itself; 
as in murder, to the vindication of one's honor; in theft, to the sup- 
plying of one's needs or those of the poor; in fornication or adultery, 
to the maintenance of one's health or comfort. Nothing did more to 
bring upon the society the fear and distrust of the nations and of indi- 
viduals than the justification and recommendation by several of their 
writers of the assassination of tyrants, the term " tyrant " being made 
to include all persons in authority who oppose the work of the papal 
church or the order. The question has been much discussed, Jesuits 
always taking the negative side, whether the Jesuits have taught that 
" the end sanctifies the means." It may not be possible to find this 
maxim in these precise words in Jesuit writings; but that they have 
always taught that for the " greater glory of God," identified by them 
with the extension of Roman Catholic (Jesuit) influence, the principles 
of ordinary morality may be set aside, seems certain. The doctrine of 
philosophical sin, in accordance with which actual attention to the sin- 
fulness of an act when it is being committed is requisite to its sinful- 
ness for the person committing it, was widely advocated by members 
of the society. The repudiation of some of the most scandalous maxims 
of Jesuit writers by later writers, or the placing of books containing 
scandalous maxims on the Index, does not relieve the society or the 
Roman Catholic Church from responsibility, as such books must have 
received authoritative approval before publication^ and the censuring 



JESUITS, MORAL THEOLOGY OF 295 

of them does not necessarily involve an adverse attitude toward the 
teaching itself, but may be a mere measure of expediency. — The New 
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VI, art. " Jes- 
uUs," pp. 146, 147. 

Jesuits, Selections from Moral Theology of. — One who is asked 
concerning something which it is expedient to conceal, can say, " I say 
not," that is, " I say the word * not; ' since the word " I say " has a 
double sense; for it signifies "to pronounce" and "to affirm: " now in 
our sense " I say " is the same as " I pronounce." 

A confessor can affirm, even with an oath, that he knows nothing 
of a sin heard in confession, by secretly understanding " as a man," 
but not as a minister of Christ. The reason for this is, because he who 
asks has no right to any information except such as may properly be 
imparted, which is not the kind in the possession of the confessor. 
And this, even though the other may ask whether he has heard as 
the minister of Christ; because a confessor must always be held to 
reply as a man, when he is not able to speak as a minister of Christ. 
And if any one rashly demands of a confessor whether he has heard 
of such a sin in confession, the confessor can reply, " I have not heard 
it," that is to say, as a man, or for the purpose of making it public. 
Likewise as often as one is bound to conceal the disgrace of another, 
he may lawfully say, " I do not know," that is to say, " I do not have 
any knowledge of the matter which it is profitable to impart in reply," 
or, " I do not know anything suitable to disclose." 

A penitent, when asked by a confessor concerning a sin already 
confessed, can swear that he has not committed it, understanding "that 
which has not been confessed." This, however, must be understood 
unless the confessor rightly asks for the purpose of becoming acquainted 
with the state of the penitent, 

A poor man who has hidden some goods in order to maintain him- 
self can reply to the judge that he has nothing. In the same manner 
an heir who without an inventory has concealed some property, if he 
is not bound to satisfy creditors with this property, can reply to the 
judge that he has concealed nothing, understanding " of the property 
with which he is bound to satisfy [the creditors]." . . . 

A creditor can assert with an oath that nothing has been paid to 
him on an account, even though in fact a part has been paid, if he 
himself has a loan from another person [or source] which he is not 
able to prove; provided, however, that he does not swear that this sum 
is due him on that account, and that he does not infiict injury upon the 
other former creditors. . . , 

It is permissible to swear to anything which is false by adding in 
an undertone a true condition, if that low utterance can in any way 
be perceived by the other party, though its sense is not understood; not 
so, if it wholly escapes the attention of the other. — " Theologia Moralis," 
Ligorio (R. C), Vol. I, pp. 128-130, 3d edition. Venice, 1885. 

Jesuits, Their Moral Theology Dominant. — There is no other 
domain in which Jesuitism has succeeded so completely in forcing its 
domination on Catholicism as that of moral theology. The development 
which the practice of the confessional, i. e., the domination of the pri- 
vate and public life of Catholics by means of the confessional, has 
attained since the end of the sixteenth century within the Church of 
Rome — and it is the practice of the confessional which is concealed 
under the term " moral theology " — has been mainly brought about by 
the moral theologians of the Jesuit order. The present-day Catholic 
morality is penetrated throughout with Jesuit morality. 



296 JESUITS, TEACHING OF 

This important fact is most strikingly expressed by the circum- 
stance that the greatest authority on moral theology in the Romish 
Church, Alfonso Maria di Liguori (died 1787), whom Gregory XVI 
canonized in 1839, and Pius IX in 1871, honored with the rank and dig- 
nity of a doctor of the church, was merely the commentator of the 
moral theologians of the Jesuit order, especially the two most influen- 
tial, Busenbaum and Lacroix. — " Fourteen Years a Jesuit" Count Paul 
von Hoensbroech, Vol. II, pp. 286, 287. London: Cassell & Co., 1911. 

Jesuits, Teaching of, Concekning the Power of the Chubch. — 
The Jesuits, though not the authors, are the most energetic cham- 
pions and propagators of the doctrine of the indirect supremacy of the 
church (Papacy) over the state. 

Since the two greatest theologians of the Jesuit order, Bellarmin 
and Suarez, reduced this doctrine, inclusive of the right of the Pope 
to depose princes, to a properly articulated system, it has been a rocher 
de bronze of ultramontane Catholic dogmatics and canon law, until at 
length the Syllabus of Dec. 8, 1864, and the encyclicals of Leo XIII 
and Pius X raised it from the sphere of theological opinions to the 
height of a dogmatically established doctrine. And this promotion is 
the work of the Jesuit order. 

No matter what dogmatic, canonical, or moral-theological books by 
Jesuits we open, we encounter in all the indirect power of the church 
over the state. The subject is so important that I will cite numerous 
proofs. I will begin with the present general of the Jesuit order, 
Francis Xavier Wernz, a German from Wiirtemberg: 

" The state is subject to the jurisdiction of the church, in virtue of 
which the civil authority is really subordinate to the ecclesiastical and 
bound to obedience. This subordination is indirect, but not merely 
negative, since the civil power cannot do anything even within its own 
sphere which, according to the opinion of the church, would damage 
the latter, but rather positive, so that, at the command of the church, 
the state must contribute toward the advantage and benefit of the 
church." 

" Boniface VIII pointed out for all time the correct relation between 
church and state in his constitution TJnam Sanctam, of Nov. 18, 1302, 
the last sentence of which [that every person must be subject to the 
Roman Pope] contains a dogmatic definition [a dogma]." " The legisla- 
tive power of the church extends to everything that is necessary for the 
suitable attainment of the church's aims. A dispute which may arise 
as to the extent of the ecclesiastical legislative authority is not settled 
only by a mutual agreement between church and state, but by the in- 
fallible declaration or command of the highest ecclesiastical authority." 

" From what has been said [namely, that the Pope may only make 
temporal laws in the Papal States], it by no means follows that the 
Roman Pope cannot declare civil laws, which are contrary to divine 
and canonical right, to be null and void." " The theory which calls the 
concordats papal privileges, while denying the co-ordination of state and 
church, assumes the certain and undoubted doctrine that the state is 
indirectly subject to the church. This opinion is based on the Cath- 
olic doctrine of the Pope's irrevocable omnipotence, in virtue of divine 
right, the valid application of which cannot be confined or restricted 
by any kind of compact." 

" As it not infrequently occurs that, in spite of attempted friendly 
settlement, the dispute [between church and state] continues, it is the 
duty of the church authentically to explain the point of dispute. The 



JESUITS, A FAMOUS MAXIM 297 

state must submit to this judgment." — " Fourteen Years a Jesuit," Count 
Paul von Hoensbroecfi, Vol. II, pp. 338, 339. London: Gassell & Co., 1911. 

Jesuits, A Famous Maxim of. — The oft-quoted maxim, " The end 
sanctifies the means," does not occur in this abrupt form in the moral 
and theological manuals of the order. But its signification, i. e., that 
means in themselves bad and blamable are " sanctified," i. e., are per- 
missible on account of the good ends which it is hoped to attain through 
them, is one of the fundamental doctrines of Jesuit morals and ethics. 

It is well known that many violent disputes have raged about this 
maxim. The Jesuit Roh offered a reward of 1,000 florins to any one 
who could point it out in the moral and theological writings of the 
order. The matter was not decided. In April, 1903, the Center deputy, 
Chaplain Dasbach, repeated Roh's challenge at a public meeting at 
Rixdorf, increasing the sum to 2,000 florins. I took Herr Dasbach at 
his word, published the proofs from Jesuit writings, which appeared to 
me convincing, in the magazine Deutschland, edited by myself, and 
called on the challenger, Herr Dasbach, to pay the 2,000 florins. He 
refused. I sued him for payment at the county court at Treves (Das- 
bach's place of residence). The court pronounced that the matter was 
a betting transaction, and that the money could not be recovered at 
law. On appealing against this to the high court of appeal at Cologne, 
my case was dismissed on March 30, 1905, on the ground that the pas- 
sages brought forward from Jesuit authors did not contain the sentence, 
" The end sanctifies the means," either formally or materially. My 
counsel advised against applying for a revision at the supreme court of 
the empire, as the facts of the case would not be discussed there, only 
technical errors in the previous judgments. — Id., p. 320. 

Jesuits, Roman Catholic Criticism or. — As we have already had 
occasion to see, the Society of Jesus had done great service in the cause 
of the church. In the course of time, however, when nearly all the 
schools of the Catholic world had come under its control, and when its 
members were everywhere in demand as confessors and confidential ad- 
visers to the princes, it attained a position not devoid of danger. The so- 
ciety soon acquired a strong spirit of independence, which it did not hesi- 
tate to display even toward the holy see. In effect, the determination 
with which the Jesuits adhered to their rites and usages in Malabar and 
China, in spite of their condemnation by Rome, can only with difficulty 
be reconciled with their vow of obedience, even though all allowances 
be made for their being convinced of the necessity of their methods. 
Their conduct was repeatedly made a subject of complaint by Bene- 
dict XIV. In his bull Immensa pastorum (Dec. 20, 1741), he was com- 
pelled to recall to the Jesuits and to other orders the precepts of Chris- 
tian charity, and to forbid them to hinder the progress of the gospel 
among the Indians by trading in slaves, and other inhuman practices. 
In this matter he was indeed obeyed, but in other directions the pro- 
ceedings of the society remained open to criticism. — " Manual of Church 
History," Dr. F. X. Funk, Roman Catholic Professor of Theology in the 
University of Tuhingen, Vol. II, p. 173. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, 
Triibner & Co., 1910. 

Note. — This work was published in London in 1910, having the imprimatur " 
of Archbishop Bourne's vicar-general, dated May 16, 1910. — Eds. 

Jesuits, Martyrs Compared with. — Yet, if we compare all the 
heroic sufferings of the Jesuits in the cause of obedience with those of 
the countless martyrs who have died for religious liberty in the dun- 



298 JESUITS, SUPPRESSION OP 

geons of the holy office, on the battlefields of Holland, or in the end- 
less cruelties of Romish intolerance, they seem faint and insignificant; 
and where obedience has produced one martyr, a thousand have fallen 
to attest their belief in Christianity. — ''Historical Studies,'' Eugene 
Lawrence, p. 105. 'New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876. 

Jesuits, Later History and Suppression of. — The growing secu- 
larization of the society and its need of vast resources for the mainte- 
nance and extension of its world-wide work and the diminution of free- 
will offerings that had sufficed in the times when religious enthusiasm 
was at its height, led the society to engage in great speculative business 
enterprises, those conducted in Paraguay and Martinique resulting in 
disaster to many innocent investors (1753 onward), and brought upon 
the society much reproach in Portugal and France. In Portugal the 
Marquis of Pombal, one of the foremost statesmen of his time, became 
convinced that the liberation of the country from ecclesiastical rule, in 
which Jesuits had long been predominant, required the exclusion of 
the latter. An insurrection in Portuguese Paraguay by the natives fur- 
nished an occasion to Pombal for denouncing the Jesuits to the king 
and for demanding papal prohibition of their commercial undertakings. 
The papal prohibition was issued in 1758 and priestly privileges were 
withdrawn from Jesuits in Portugal. An attempt upoh the life of the 
king (Sept. 3, 1758) was attributed to Jesuit influence, and led to a 
decree for the expulsion of the society and the confiscation of its prop- 
erty (Sept. 3, 1759). The Pope tried in vain to protect them, and his 
nuncio was driven from the country. Malgrida, a Jesuit, was burned 
at the stake in 1761. Speculations by Jesuits in Martinique, in which 
vast sums of money were lost by French citizens, led to a public inves- 
tigation of the methods of the society, and on April 16. 1761, the Par- 
liament of Paris decreed a suppression of Jesuit establishments in 
France, and on May 8 declared the entire order responsible for the 
debts of the principal promoter of the collapsed enterprise. Other par- 
liaments followed that of Paris. King, Pope, and many bishops pro- 
tested in vain. Eighty of their colleges were closed in April, 1762. 
Their constitution was denounced as godless, sacrilegious, and treason- 
able, and the vows taken by Jesuits were declared to be null and void. 
On Nov. 26, 1764, the king agreed to a decree of expulsion. In Spain 
6,000 Jesuits were suddenly arrested at night and conveyed to papal 
territory (Sept. 2-3, 1768). Refused admission by the Pope, they took 
refuge in Corsica. A similar seizure and transportation of 3,000 had 
occurred at Naples (Nov. 3-4, 1767). Parma dealt with them similarly 
(Feb. 7, 1768), and soon afterward they were expelled from Malta by 
the Knights of St. John. 

The Bourbon princes urged Clement XIII to abolish the society. 
He refused, and when he died (Feb. 2, 1769) there was much intriguing 
among friends and enemies of the Jesuits in seeking to secure the elec- 
tion of a pope that would protect or abolish the society. Cardinal Gan- 
ganelli was elected, and it is highly probable that he had bargained 
with the Bourbons for the destruction of the Jesuits. From the begin- 
ning of his pontificate powerful pressure was brought to bear upon 
him by Spain, France, and Portugal for the abolition of the order. He 
gave promises of early action, but long hesitated to strike the fatal 
blow. He began by subjecting the Jesuit colleges in and around Rome 
to investigation. These were promptly suppressed and their inmates 
banished. Maria Theresa of Austria, who had been greatly devoted to 
the Jesuits, now regretfully abandoned them and joined with the Bour- 
bons in demanding the abolition of the society by the Pope. This com- 
bined pressure of the chief Catholic powers was more than the Pope 



JESUITS, BRIEF OF CIjEMENT XIV 299 

could withstand ('' Goactus feci,^' he is reported to have afterward said). 
On July 21, 1773, he signed the brief Dominus ac Redemptor noster, 
which abolished the society, and on August 16 the general and his chief 
assistants were imprisoned and all their property in Rome and the 
states of the church confiscated (Eng. transl. of this brief is most easily 
accessible in Nicolini, " History of the Jesuits," pp. 387-406, London, 
1893). The brief recites at length the charges of immoral teaching 
and intolerable meddlesomeness in matters of church and state, of the 
abuse of the unlimited privileges that the society has enjoyed, and 
virtually admits that it has become totally depraved and a universal 
nuisance. To restore peace to Christendom its abolition is declared to 
be necessary. A papal coin was struck the same year in commemora 
tion of the event, with Christ sitting in judgment and saying to the 
Jesuit fathers arraigned on his left, " Depart from me, all of you, I 
never knew you." — The New Schaft-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, Vol. VI, art. " Jesuits,'' pp. 147, 148. 

Jesuits, Action of French Parliament of 1762 Concerning. — The 
court has ordered that the passages extracted from the books of 147 
Jesuit authors having been verified, a collated copy shall be presented 
to the king, to enable him to know the perversity of the doctrine main- 
tained by the so-called Jesuits from the foundation of the society up 
to the present moment, with the approbation of the theologians, the 
permission of the superiors and generals, and the applause of other 
members of the aforesaid society: a doctrine authorizing theft, lying, 
perjury, impurity, all passions and all crimes, teaching homicide, parri- 
cide, and regicide, overthrowing religion in order to substitute super- 
stitions for it, while favoring magic, blasphemy, irreligion, and idol- 
atry; and the said sovereign lord shall be most humbly entreated to 
consider the results of such pernicious teaching combined with the 
choice and uniformity of the opinions of the aforesaid society. Done 
in Parliament, the 5th March, 1762. — " Our Brief Against Rome,'" Rev. 
Charles Stuteville Isaacson, M. A., Appendix G, p. 269. London: The 
Religious Tract Society, 1905. 

Jesuits, Extracts from the Brief of Clement XIV Suppressing 
THE. — We have seen, in the grief of our heart, that neither these reme- 
dies [applied by former popes], nor an infinity of others, since em- 
ployed, have produced their due effect, or silenced the accusations and 
complaints against the said society [e. g., Jesuit]. Our other prede- 
cessors, Urban VII, Clement IX, X, XI, and XII, and Alexander VII 
and VIII, Innocent X, XII, and XIII, and Benedict XIV, employed, 
without effect, all their efforts to the same purpose. In vain did they 
endeavor, by salutary constitutions, to restore peace to the church; as 
well with respect to secular affairs, with which the company ought not 
to have interfered, as with regard to the missions, [p. 394] . . . After a 
mature deliberation, we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the 
fulness of our apostolical power, suppress and aholish the said company: 
we deprive it of all activity whatever, of its houses, schools, colleges, 
hospitals, lands, and, in short, every other place whatsoever, in what- 
ever kingdom or province they may be situated; we abrogate and annul 
its statutes, rules, customs, decrees, and constitutions, even though con- 
firmed by oath, and approved by the Holy See or otherwise; in like 
manner we annul all and every its privileges, indults, general or par- 
ticular, the tenor whereof is, and is taken to be, as fully and as amply 
expressed in the present brief as if the same were inserted word for 
word, in whatever clauses, form, or decree, or under whatever sanction 



3 00 JESUITS, RESTORATION OF 

their privileges may have been conceived. We declare all, and all kind 
of authority, the general, the provincials, the visitors, and other supe- 
riors of the said society, to be forever annulled and, extinguished, of 
what nature soever the said authority may be, as well in things spirit- 
ual as temporal, [p. 398] — " History of the Jesuits" G. B. Nicolini, pp. 
394-398. .. London: George Bell d Sons, 1884. 

Jesuits, Roman Catholic View of Their Suppression. — In the 
Brief of Suppression the most striking feature is the long list of alle- 
gations against the society, with no mention of what is favorable; the 
tone of the brief is very adverse. On the other hand, the charges are 
recited categorically; they are not definitely stated to have been proved. 
The object is to represent the order as having occasioned perpetual 
strife, contradiction, and trouble. For the sake of peace the society 
must be suppressed. — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Yol. XIV, art. " Society 
of Jesus," p. 99. 

Jesuits, Restoration of. — The execution of the Brief of Suppres- 
sion having been largely left to the local bishops, there was room for 
a good deal of variety in the treatment which the Jesuits might receive 
in different places. In Austria and Germany they were generally al- 
lowed to teach (but with secular clergy as superiors). . . . But in 
Russia, and until 1780 in Prussia, the Empress Catherine and King 
Frederick II desired to maintain the society as a teaching body. They 
forbade the local bishops to promulgate the brief until their placet was 
obtained. Bishop Massalski in White Russia, 19 September, 1773, there- 
fore ordered the Jesuit superiors to continue to exercise jurisdiction till 
further notice, [p. 99] . . . 

The Restored Society. — Pius VII had resolved to restore the so- 
ciety during his captivity in France; and after his return to Rome did 
so with little delay, 7 August, 1814, by the bull Sollicitudo omnium 
ecclesiarum, and therewith the general in Russia, Thaddaeus Brzozow- 
ski, acquired universal jurisdiction, [p. 100] — Id., pp. 99, 100. 

Jesuits, Present Activity of. — A striking parallel is found in the 
secret society of the Jesuits — that indefatigable order which undoubt- 
edly saved the Romish Church from destruction at the period of the 
Reformation, and has ever since proved the chief stay and strength of 
the system of disguised paganism which we have been endeavoring to 
expose. But energetic as its members showed themselves to be in times 
that are past, it is probable that they were never more so than in the 
last few years. To their exertions we may refer the fact that the tide 
of popery is again setting in upon the Protestant countries of England, 
America, and Germany. — "Rome: Pagan and Papal" Mourant Brock, 
M. A., p. 266. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1883. 

Jesuits, Work of. Against Protestantism. — The movement which 
began at Trent and was consummated in our own day, and which made 
unity of organization and absolute submission to the Pope the supreme 
tests, was chiefly the work of the Jesuits, who emerged on the scene as 
the great dominating force before the second assembling of the council 
in 1551, and whose influence was supreme throughout its later doings. 
Their policy was not merely to put an end to the idea of reunion through 
reform, but to silence the cry for compromise. " Cease your discussions 
and crush Protestantism," was their motto; and for a time their success 
was extraordinary. They secured the removal of the grosser abuses 
which weakened Rome; they carried Romish doctrines among the 
heathen in an era when there were no corresponding Protestant mis- 



JESUS CHRIST 301 

sions; and they drove back the Reformation movement to the limits 
which are still its practical boundaries. — 'TTie Arrested Reformation," 
Rev. William Muir, M. A., B. D., B. L., p. 155. London: Morgan and 
Scott, 1912. 

Jesus Christ, Vabious Views as to Time of Bieth of. — As the 
early tradition of the church designated this month [December], as the 
time of the Lord's birth, it has been generally accepted, but not univer- 
sally. Lightfoot makes it to have been in September; Newcome, in Oc- 
tober; Paulus, in March; Wieseler, in February; Lichtenstein, in June; 
Greswell, in April; Clinton, in spring; Lardner and Robinson, in au- 
tumn; Strong and Lewin, in August; Quandt, in May. — ''The Life of 
Our Lord upon the Earth" Samuel J. Andrews, p. 17. New York: 
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891. 

Jesus Christ, Time of Bieth of. — These four chronological data 
lead us to the same year, 750 a. u. c, and, what is more, the same period 
of the year, viz., its beginning. While, then, we consider it not im- 
possible that Jesus was born toward the end of 749 a. u. c, 5 b. c, yet 
we must on these grounds hold it to be far more probable that he was 
born in one of the early months of 750 a. u. c.=z4: b. c. — "A Chronological 
Synopsis of the Four Gospels," Earl Wieseler, p. 114, translated by Rev. 
Edmund Y enables, M. A. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1864. 

The result of our investigation as to the exact date of our Lord's 
birth, then, is as follows, — that the day cannot now be determined at 
all; while, as regards the months, our choice lies between the close of 
December [b. c. 5], January and February [b. c. 4], of which, however, 
December is the least probable, January more so, and February de- 
cidedly the most probable of all. — Id., p. 129. 

Jesus Christ, Date of Birth of. — Our inquiries lead us, then, 
to these general results. We find it most probable that the Lord was 
born near the end of the year 749 [b. c. 5]. At this period all the chron- 
ological statements of the evangelists seem most readily to center and 
harmonize. In favor of December, the last month of that year, as 
much may be said as in favor of any other, and this aside from the 
testimony of tradition. As to the day, little that is definite can be said. 
The 25th of this month lies open to the suspicion of being selected on 
other than historic grounds, yet it is not inconsistent with any data 
we have, and has the voice of tradition in its favor. Still, in regard to 
all these conclusions, it must be remembered that many elements of 
uncertainty enter into the computations, and that any positive state- 
ments are impossible. — " The Life of Our Lord upon, the Earth," Samuel 
J. Andrews, p. 2^. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891. 

We give the opinions of some of the older and of the more modern 
chronologists and commentators [as to the time of Christ's birth] : 

For the year 747 [b. c. 7], Sanclemente, Wurm, Ideler, Miinter, Sepp, 
Jarvis, Alford, Patritius, Ebrard, Zumpt, Keim; 748 [b. c. 6], Kepler, 
Lewin; 749 [b. c. 5], Petavius, Usher, Norris, Tillemont, Lichtenstein, 
Ammer, Friedlieb, Bucher, Browne, Godet, McClellan; 750 [b. c. 4], 
Bengel, Wieseler, Greswell, Ellicott, Pressense, Thomson; for 751 [b. c. 
3], Keil, Quandt; 752 [b. c. 2], Caspari, Reiss; Lardner hesitates be- 
tween 748 and 749; so Robinson, "not later than the autumn of 749, 
perhaps a year earlier;" so Beyschlag, Schenkel; Pound, "August 749 



302 JESUS CHRIST 

to August 750." Clinton finds the earliest possible date the autumn of 
748, the latest that of 750; Woolsey, undecided. — " The Life of Our Lord 
upon the Earth,'' Samuel J. Andrews, p. 12. New York: Charles Scrih- 
ner's Sons, 1891. 

Jesus Christ, Length or Earthly Ministry of. — The opinion 
that the death of Christ was separated from his baptism by an interval 
of exactly three years and a half, was entertained by many of the 
church Fathers, [p. 2401 . . . 

It is on the Gospel of John particularly that the decision of this 
question depends. Three feasts of the Passover are expressly men- 
tioned by him, during the public life of Christ (see John 2: 13; 6: 4; 
and 13: 1). It is a disputed point whether there is a fourth or not; 
and the decision of the question, whether the death of Christ is to be 
placed in the third or fourth year of his public ministry, rests entirely 
upon the interpretation to be given to John 5: 1, "After this there was 
a [the] feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." 

The question what feast is intended here is considerably simplified 
by the fact that of late it has almost universally been admitted that, 
if the apostle refers to any particular feast at all, the choice must 
lie between the feast of Purim and the Passover. But so far as the 
opinion that the apostle does not refer to any particular feast is con- 
cerned, we must at the very outset pronounce it untenable; though we 
do not feel called upon to enter more minutely into the reasons for 
rejecting it. It is a sufficient objection that, in every other case, John 
speaks of particular feasts; that, throughout his Gospel, the arrange- 
ment is regulated by the feasts, — in this instance, for example, the feast 
mentioned introduces the third group, — and that the references to the 
feasts have a chronological significance, for which reason the Pass- 
over is mentioned in chapter 6: 4, even when Christ did not take part 
in it. [pp. 240, 2411 . . . 

The dispute is decided at once in favor of the Passover, if the article 
is to be regarded as genuine.^ That we cannot deal so summarily with 
it as Wieseler does, who says, " Both exegetically and critically the 
conclusion is indisputable that the article is a later correction," is evi- 
dent from the fact that Tischendorf has restored it to the text. It Is 
enough to excite suspicion that even Wieseler places the exegetical 
before the critical. The omission of the article might very easily have 
originated with those who did not know what to make of it. The feast 
must either be the feast par excellence, or the feast mentioned before. 
In the former case, it must be the Passover, [p. 244] . . . 

According to Winer, the definite article may be omitted " when the 
omission does not introduce any ambiguity into the discourse, or leave 
the reader in any uncertainty whether he is to understand the word 
definitely or indefinintely." This is the case here. Every unbiased 
reader thinks at once of the Passover. The decisioll of this point 
rests upon what goes before, especially as the expression, " and Jesus 
went up to Jerusalem," precludes the possibility of any other being 
intended than one of the three leading festivals; and among these it is 
most natural to fix upon the Passover, inasmuch as this was the only 
one at which it was a universal custom to make a pilgrimage to Jeru- 
salem, [pp. 244, 245] ... 

But we are not restricted to the proof derived from John 5: 1. By 
the side of this we may place another from the parable in Luke 13 : € 



1 Note. — In the margin of the American Revised Version this statement is 
found : " Many ancient authorities read the feast." — Eds. 



JESUS CHRIST 303 



sqq., from which, in addition to its own independent significance, we 
may obtain a guaranty for the correctness of the result, to which we 
have been brought by John 5:1. At the time when Jesus related this 
parable, three years of his ministry had already passed. According to 
verse 7, the owner of the vineyard (God) says to the husbandman 
(Christ), "Behold these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig 
tree, and find none." [p. 248] . . . 

At this time, at least two years and a half had gone by. But ac- 
cording to verse 8, the fig tree was to receive a respite of another year: 
" Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it and dung it." 
From this we obtain, in all, at least three years and a half, answering 
to the four Passovers of John. Those who allot a shorter space of time 
to the public teaching of Christ are obliged to resort to forcible expe- 
dients, [p. 249] — " Christoloffy of the Old Testament,'' E. ~W. Hengsten- 
herg, Vol. Ill, pp. 240-249, translated -from the German hy Jam<es Mar- 
tin, B. A. Edintwrgh: T. & T. Clark, 1858. 

Jesus Christ, Three Stages of Public Life of. — In the Lord's pub- 
lic life we seem to find three stages distinctly marked. The first is that 
period extending from the first Passover (John 2: 13) to the feast when 
the impotent man was healed (John 5:1), and embracing about a year. 
It began with the purgation of the temple, and ended with the attempt 
of the Jews to kill him because he made himself equal with God. Dur- 
ing this time his labors were confined mainly to Judea. Near the close 
of this period, we may place the imprisonment of the Baptist. The 
second stage is that period following his return to Galilee immediately 
after the feast, and embraces the whole duration of his ministry there, 
or about a year and six months. This period may be divided into two, 
of which the death of the Baptist will serve as the dividing line. The 
third stage begins with his final departure from Galilee, and ends with 
his death at Jerusalem, and embraces five or six months. — " The Life 
of Our Lord upon the Earth,'' Samuel J. Andrews, p. 136. New York: 
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891. 

Jesus Christ, Time of Crucifixion of. — The early Fathers were 
not wholly unaware of the uncertainty of their chronology, and several 
of them state that they had not the data for a conclusive judgment. 
Irenaeus says : " We cannot be ignorant how greatly all the Fathers differ 
among themselves, as well concerning the year of the Passion as the 
day." Again: "Concerning the time of the Passion, the diversities of 
opinion are infinite." Augustine says, that except the fact that He was 
about thirty at his baptism, all else is obscure and uncertain. Tertul- 
lian, as we have said, is inconsistent with himself, and now makes His 
ministry to have continued one year, and now three; now puts his 
baptism in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and now in the twelfth. Some 
began early to put his death in the sixteenth, others in the seventeenth 
or eighteenth, and finally in the nineteenth of Tiberius. 

One point, however, in patristic chronology may here be noticed, the 
early and general belief that the Lord was crucified in 782 [a. d. 29]. 
It is well known that almost all the Fathers of the first three centuries, 
particularly the Latins, accepted this date. — Id., p. 49. 

On what day of the week was our Lord crucified? The unanimous 
answer of the evangelists is, " On a Friday." Luke, after speaking of 
our Lord's burial, which followed immediately on his death, says " it 
was the vapaaKcvi^" [para^keud], i. e., "it was Friday." Luke 23: 54. 
And what he immediately adds, " the Sabbath drew on," agrees with 



304 JESUS CHRIST 

this. Besides, the day following the irapaaKevfj IparasTceuel on which 
the women who had been present at our Lord's burial rested, is called 
the "Sabbath," i. e., Saturday (Luke 23: 56), and it was "on the first 
day of the week," i. e., on Sunday, "very early in the morning" (Luke 
24: 1), that they came to the sepulcher. In Mark, too, the day of our 
Lord's death is called vapaa-Kevi^ '[paraskeue'\, which is explained by the 
universally intelligible addition 3 ia-n irpoad^^arov [ho esti prosahdaton]. 
When the Sabbath was over, that is on Saturday evening, the women 
brought spices. " Very early in the morning, the first day of the week, 
they came unto the sepulcher." Mark 16: 2; cf. v. 9. Matthew defines 
the day succeeding that of our Lord's death with still greater precision 
by adding ^ns ia-n fiera rijv irapaa-Kevi^v [hetis esti meta ten parasTceuenI 
(Matt. 27: 62); and describes the hour of the day of resurrection when 
the women were hastening to the sepulcher, as rri i-rrKpcjaKo^'a-ri its fiiav o-ajS- 
jSdrwv Ite epifoskouse eis mian sabbaton]. Matt. 28: 1. John, too, agrees 
with the Synoptists. He also places the day of crucifixion on a 
irapaffKevii [paraskeue'] (John 19: 31, 42), which is followed by a Sab- 
bath (v. 31), and it is on Sunday morning that Mary Magdalene visits 
the grave of him who had risen (John 20: 1). All four evangelists 
therefore agree in naming Friday, or the irapaa-Kevri Iparaskeue'], as the 
day of our Lord's death. — "A Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gos- 
pels," Karl Wieseler, pp. SOS, 309, translated by Rev. Edmund Yenable^s, 
M. A. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell d Co., 1864. 

Jesus Christ, Resurrection, Purpose of the Recqrd in the Gos- 
pels. — Thus we see that to prove the fact of the resurrection by citing 
all possible witnesses, was by no means the chief end of the evangelists. 
His resurrection was the beginning of a new and higher stage of the 
Lord's redemptive work, and it was essential that his disciples, and 
especially his apostles, should be convinced of this by his personal man- 
ifestations to them, and thus be prepared to be his witnesses (Acts 10: 
41; 13: 31), whose testimony the world should believe. But the object of 
the evangelists was to show, each from his own point of view, how the 
Lord first by repeated revelations of himself brought the apostles to 
such faith in him as risen, that he could instruct them during the forty 
days of his stay on earth, and carry on his new work by them after 
his departure. 

We are not, then, to expect in the evangelists any full and orderly 
statement of the manifestations of the Risen One, as proofs of his 
resurrection. No one of them designs to give anything like a complete 
summary of the evidence to establish it. Of course, every appearance 
mentioned is a proof; every one who saw him became a witness. But the 
purpose of their narratives is not only to show the fact of his resur- 
rection, but also what means he employed to assure them that he had 
risen in true though glorified manhood, the gradual growth of their 
faith, and the nature of the work he commissioned his church to do. — 
" The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth,'' Samuel J. Andrews, pp. 592, 
593. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891. 

Jesus Christ, Period Between Resurrection and Ascension of. — 
The forty days, or five weeks and five days, beginning Easter Sunday, 
April 9, and ending Thursday, May 18, may be divided into three peri- 
ods: 1. That in Judea from Easter Sunday to the departure into Gali- 
lee; 2. That in Galilee; 3. That after the return to Jerusalem to the 
ascension. 
During the first period, from Easter Sunday till the Sunday fol- 
lowing inclusive, there were six appearances, five on Easter Sunday: 



JESUS CHRIST 305 

(a) to Mary Magdalene; (&) to the other women; (c) to the two at 
Emmaus; (d) to Peter; (e) to the eleven; on the next Sunday if) to 
the eleven. That the Lord may have appeared to his mother on Easter 
day or during the week, is probable, but not recorded. 

During the second period, after the arrival in Galilee, there were 
two, probably three, recorded appearances: (a) to the seven at the Sea 
of Tiberias; (6) to the five hundred, the eleven being present; (c) to 
James. 

During the third period, after the return to Jerusalem to the ascen- 
sion — some two days — there were two appearances: (a) to the apos- 
tles first assembling somewhere in the city; (6) to them in the city 
to lead them out to Bethany. 

The length of each of these periods can only approximately be 
given: 1. In Jerusalem, and including time of journey to Galilee, twelve 
days; 2. In Galilee, twenty-three days; 3. Journey from Galilee to 
Jerusalem and in the city, five days. — " The Life of Our Lord upon the 
Earth," Samuel J. Andrews, pp. 637, 638. New York: Charles Scribner's 
Sons^ 1891. 

Jesus Christ, The Gift of the Holy Spirit a Witness to. — The 
body of the New Testament writings, but peculiarly the epistles of St. 
Paul, both from their manifest character and their known origin, afford 
irresistible and conclusive evidence to the operation of a new principle 
in the world to which there is no parallel in secular literature. This 
principle openly declared itself as the influence of the Holy Spirit. As 
to its novelty there can be no doubt, for the only instance of a similar 
agency at work, and this is but a partial parallel, is to be found in the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament. As to its tendency, also, there can 
be no doubt, unless we are prepared to assert that the moral tendency 
of the Pauline writings is pernicious, and the principles inculcated bad. 
As to its origin, therefore, there can alone be any doubt, whether it was 
righteous and true, or whether it was virtually unrighteous because 
inherently and radically false. And this is practically determined by 
the former consideration, for " by their fruits ye shall know them." 

But further, this, gift of the Holy Spirit, which was continually 
appealed to and claimed by the first preachers of the gospel, and im- 
plied and evidenced in the early Christian correspondence of St. Paul, 
was ever promised and bestowed in confirmation of the truth which 
was embraced when Jesus was acknowledged as the Christ. As a matter 
of fact, there is no evidence of a principle at work analogous to that of 
which the writings of the New Testament, regarded merely as writings, 
are the abiding monument, outside the limits of the early Christian 
society. This is simply a question of literature, and not at all an asser- 
tion of dogma. " These are written that ye might believe," may fairly 
and conclusively be taken as the motto of the New Testament Scrip- 
tures. We do not assume inspiration in order to exalt those scriptures; 
but we take those scriptures as they are, and deduce from their exist- 
ence and their highly exceptional phenomena, the necessary postulate of 
a special and unique inspiration. As a matter of fact, the confession of 
the name of Jesus as the Christ was followed by results new and un- 
paralleled in the history of the world. If the Gospels and the Acts were 
lost to us, the measure of those results would be preserved imperishably 
in the known and undoubted epistles of St. Paul. As they could not 
have been written but for the conviction and confession that Jesus was 
the Christ, so neither are the phenomena they present and impry to be 
accounted for on the supposition that Jesus was not the Christ: on the 
20 



306 JESUS CHRIST 

supposition, that is, either that the facts which proved him to be the 
Christ were fallacious and unreal, or that there was something essen- 
tially hollow and unsound in the conception of that office, and those 
hopes which he was declared to have fulfilled. For Jesus was pro- 
claimed as the Christ, not to the Jews only, but to the Gentiles also. Je- 
sus was accepted as the Christ, not by the Jews only who believed, but 
by the Gentiles also. 

There is therefore, in the Christ-office of Jesus, that which is alike 
independent of nationality and of time. We, in the present day, cannot 
afford to surrender the claim advanced for Jesus to be the Christ, for, 
in so doing, we shall renounce our title to the name of Christian. It 
was to the validity of this claim, no less than to the historic reality 
of the person advancing and fulfilling it, that the gift of the Holy 
Ghost was promised and bestowed as an attesting witness. His testi- 
mony would have been invalidated, and God, in the language of St. John, 
have been made a liar, had there been any flaw in the cardinal facts 
of the life of Jesus, or in the reality of that office which he claimed 
to fill. 

And thus, lastly, the fact of Jesus being the Christ, which iS wit- 
nessed to by the historic gift of the Holy Ghost, which alone will enable 
us adequately and satisfactorily to account for the essential and char- 
acteristic features of the earliest Christian literature, as we find them 
in the writings of St. Paul, becomes the effectual and conclusive seal of 
the substantial and essential truth of the Old Testament Scriptures as 
a whole. There was a hope embodied in those Scriptures, which was 
not of man's discovery or conception, which was divinely inspired, and 
based on a promise which was God-given. It was a hope which grew 
brighter and brighter as the time of its fulfilment drew near. It was a 
hope of which we can clearly trace the development, and yet a hope 
to which, neither in its origin nor in its development, can we as- 
sign a sufficient natural cause. It has never been given to any nation 
but one to indulge Instinctively an irrepressible hope like that of the 
Messiah, which the progress of the ages has fulfilled. It has never 
been given to any literature but one to express this hope in a thousand 
forms, unconsciously to conceive, to nurture, and to develop it, in 
manifold parts and in divers manners, till it became a substantial and 
consistent whole, and to leave this expression for centuries as an heir- 
loom to mankind, the significance and preciousness of which time alone 
would declare and history conclusively reveal. 

But to this nation and to this literature it was given. The national 
mind of Israel was pregnant with a mighty thought, a thought which 
we cannot fail to detect from the earliest to the latest monuments of its 
literature. As it was impossibl/e that this thought should be self- 
originated, we can only recognize it as the fruit of the nation's ex- 
ceptional nearness and dearness to God, the offspring of God's covenant 
and union with the nation; and when the life of Jesus could be looked 
back upon and regarded as a whole, then it was found, and not before, 
that that life was the fullest and the complete realization of the 
mighty thought. When he was recognized as the man-child whom Zion 
travailed to bring forth, the fulness of the hope which, for long ages, 
patriarchs, prophets, and poets had cherished, and the law itself had 
foreshadowed and symbolized, — when he was accepted as the Christ 
and the Prophet that should come into the world, then it was seen that 
the hope of the fathers was not a dream, and that he who had spoken 
by the prophets was none other than the Holy Spirit of truth. — " TAe 
Religion of the Christ,'' Rev. Stanley Leathes, M. A., pp. 306-310. New 
YorTc: Pott, Young <& Co., 1874. 



JESUS CHRIST 307 

Jesus Christ, Two Natures of. — Along with more indefinite and 
general expressions concerning the higher nature of Jesus, the elevation 
of his doctrine and person, and his Messianic character, we find, even in 
the primitive church, allusions to the intimate union between the divine 
and the human in his person. But the relation in which they stand to 
each other is not exactly defined, nor is the part which each takes in 
the formation of his personality sharply or philosophically determined. 
The earlier Fathers endeavored, on the one hand, to avoid the low views 
of the Ebionites and Artemonites (Alogi), who considered Jesus as only 
the son of Joseph and Mary (while the more moderate Nazarenes, in 
accordance with the Catholic confession, admitted a supernatural con- 
ception). On the other hand, they combated still more decidedly the 
tendency of the Docetse, who rejected the true humanity of Christ. They 
also opposed the opinion (held by Cerinthus and Basilides) that the 
Logos (Christ) had descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, ac- 
cording to which the divine and human are united only in an external, 
mechanical way; and the still more fanciful motions of Marcion, accord- 
ing to which Christ appeared as Deus ex machina; and lastly, the view 
of Valentinus (also docetic), who admitted that Christ was born of 
Mary, but maintained that he made use of her only as of a channel, 
by which he might be introduced into this finite life, — "A History of 
Christian Doctrines" Dr. K. R. Hagenbacfi, Vol. I, p. 239. Edinburgh: 
T. & T. Clark, 1880. 

Jesus Christ, The Center of Doctrine. — We cannot, therefore, sepa- 
rate Christ's doctrine from his person. For the peculiar and harmo- 
nious relation in which Christ, as the Son of God, stood to his heavenly 
Father, the decision with which he bore witness to this relationship, 
and the spiritual and moral renovation which were to flow from himself, 
as the Saviour, unto mankind, form the kernel and center of his doc- 
trine. It has not essentially the character of a system made up of 
certain definitive notions, but it is a fact in the religious and moral 
sphere, the joyful news {eia-y^O^tov, K-^pvyfia [euangelion, kerugma]) of 
which was to be proclaimed to all men for their salvation, on condition 
of faith, and a willingness to repent and obey in newness of life. Jesus 
is not the author of a dogmatic theology, but the author and finisher 
of faith (Heb. 12: 2); not the founder of a school, but in the most 
exalted sense the founder of a religion and of the church. Hence he 
did not propound dogmas dressed in a scientific garb, but he taught the 
divine word in a simply human and popular manner, for the most part 
in parables and proverbs. — Id., p. 51. 

Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity of. — Though the prom- 
ised Messiah was to be a divine person, a powerful conqueror, and a 
glorious king, and to bring to man the most blessed tidings of divine 
mercy, and be a minister of healing to the sick, comfort to the afflicted, 
and deliverance to the oppressed, he was also to be poor and despised, 
oppressed and persecuted by man, " a man of sorrows and acquainted 
with grief," subjected to every species of ignominy and reproach, and 
at last wounded, and bruised, and cut off out of the land of the living. 
Isaiah 53; Psalm 22; Isa. 50: 6. 

No human eye could have foreseen a character compounded of such 
apparent contradictions, a Being in whom such seemingly irreconcilable 
characteristics should all meet. 

Are these characteristics, then, also to be found in the person of 
Jesus of Nazareth? We have only to consult the records, not merely 



308 JESUS CHRIST 

of the apostolic writings, but of his enemies, to find abundant evidence 
on this point. 

Behold the helpless infant lying, as the offspring of parents in the 
lowest grade of society, in a manger at Bethlehem. Could there be a 
condition of more abject poverty and weakness? True, the star pointed 
down upon him from above as the King of the Jews; the wise men from 
the East traveled from their far country to worship him, and pour out 
before him their offerings of frankincense and gold; and the angels 
proclaimed his advent to the shepherds, as bringing glory to God in the 
highest, peace on earth, and good will to men; but, nevertheless, he 
had but a manger for his cradle, lying among the poorest of the poor, 
as a helpless child, dependent upon a mother's care. 

The world heeded him not. They were paying their court to the 
great, the noble, and the wealthy. His own highly favored people, whose 
cherished oracles clearly proclaimed all the circumstances of his advent, 
looked upon him with disdain. The heathen poets, whom the faint 
gleam of ancient traditions, founded, no doubt, on the testimonies of the 
inspired prophets, had enabled to anticipate the advent at this very 
period of a great deliverer and restorer of peace to the world, pointed 
to the Roman emperor, as clearly fulfilling the predictions which had 
been so long the hope of the world. By none other, in the eyes Of the 
world, could these prophetic announcements be fulfilled but by him at 
whose will, apparently, peace reigned throughout the earth, and whose 
throne was supported by all the earthly elements of glory, majesty, and 
power. The nations of the earth had been subdued by him into a state 
of submission, and at his fiat, apparently, peace reigned. But was this 
the consequence of his will? No; the word of prophecy had foretold 
that such should be the state of the world when the Messiah appeared. 
The true Deliverer, the true Prince of Peace, was the humble and de- 
spised babe in the manger at Bethlehem. Time has borne its witness, 
and wiil bear more abundant witness, to this fact. 

Ah! how little do we know of the true character even of the scenes 
in which we live, and the events that are happening around us; how 
little can the human mind fathom the divine counsels, or recognize, 
before the issue, the operations by which they are accomplished! 

View Him again wandering in the streets and mountains in and 
about Jerusalem, " not having where to lay his head." True, at this 
very time he gave sight to the blind; and one word from him calmed 
the stormy sea; with authority and power he commanded the unclean 
spirits, and they came out; and his summons brought back the departed 
spirit, in a moment, to its former moldering tabernacle in the flesh. 
Glorified in the mount of transfiguration, so as to dazzle the eyes of his 
disciples by the splendor of his appearance, he had the testimony from 
above, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." But 
from that same mount he descended to wander as a very outcast from 
society. Matt. 17: 2-5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9: 35. 

As the prophetic psalmist had foretold, he was " a stranger even 
unto his brethren, and an alien unto his mother's children" (Ps. 69: 8), 
for, as St. John tells us, " neither did his brethren believe in him." 
John 7:5. 

View him finally as he wept tears of blood in the garden of Geth- 
semane; as he went a prisoner, deserted even by his disciples, to the 
judgment hall; as he gave his back to the scourge and his head to the 
crown of thorns; as he was nailed to the cross, and yielded up his life 
amid all the external signs of abject helplessness. 

True, even in that hour of apparent weakness he claimed power to 
obtain legions of angels for his defense (Matt. 26: 53); he healed with 



JESUS CHRIST 309 

a touch one of his captors (Luke 22: 51); he forewarned his judge 
that he would see him hereafter " sitting on the right hand of power 
and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 26: 64); and when he 
yielded up his spirit on the cross, such were the signs that accompanied 
that event, that even the Roman centurion and his companions " feared 
greatly, saying, Truly, this was the Son of God." Matt. 27: 54. 

But nevertheless his outward condition is only that of a man 
of sorrows, given over to the will of his enemies, deserted apparently 
both by God and man. 

His disciples, staggered at the apparent discrepancy between this 
scene of humiliation and suffering and the triumphs to which their 
eager hopes had led them to look forward, were ready to bewail the 
failure of all their expectations. " We trusted," they said, " that it 
had been he which should have redeemed Israel" (Luke 24: 21), but 
now all hope of this seemed to them to be gone. 

But herein, as they were soon taught, was the fulfilment of the 
divine predictions in the person of Jesus of Nazareth most con- 
spicuously manifested. " Ought not Christ," they were reminded, " to 
have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? " and they were 
referred to the predictions of Moses and all the prophets as showing 
that all that had recently happened at Jerusalem had been clearly 
foretold. Luke 24: 26, 27, 44-46. 

We see, then, that in all these various points the person and char- 
acter of him to whom we look as our Saviour correspond with the pre- 
dictions of the Old Testament prophets respecting the Messiah, the 
divine Deliverer, who, in God's appointed time, was to come into the 
world. In the person of Jesus of Nazareth, God, in the language of our 
text, has " raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his 
servant David, as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets which 
have been since the world began; " for, let us remember, that, as holy 
Simeon testified at his advent, he is " a light to lighten the CJentiles," 
as well as "the glory of his people Israel." Luke 2: 32. 

What is the conclusion, then, which we draw from all this evi- 
dence that Jesus of Nazareth was the subject of one continued chain of 
prophecy from the beginning of the world, and that the nature of his 
person and work was accurately described by the prophets many cen- 
turies before his advent? Reason requires us to bow the knee before 
him, in humble submission to his authority, and thankful recognition 
of him in the character he claims to bear, and the offices he came to 
fulfil. With Thomas we are compelled to exclaim, " My Lord and my 
God." John 20: 2S. — '' Fulfilled Prophecy,'' Rev. W. Goode, D. D., F. 8. 
A., pp. 146-149. London: James Nishet & Co., 1891. 

Jesus Christ, Revolution Produced by. — Certainly, no revolution 
that has ever taken place in society can be compared to that which has 
been produced by the words of Jesus Christ. Those words met a want, 
a deep want, in the spirit of man. They placed in the clear sunlight of 
truth a solution of those profound problems and enigmas, in relation to 
man and his destiny, about which the philosophers only disputed. They 
more than confirmed every timid hope which the wisest and best of men 
had cherished. 

He pointed men to a Father in heaven, to the mansions of rest 
which he would prepare. He " brought life and immortality to light." 

He erected a perfect standard of morals, and insisted upon love to 
God and love to man, and he stood before men in the glorious light of 
his own perfect example. 

He spoke, and that spiritual slumber of the race which seemed the 



310 JESUS CHRIST 



image of death was broken up, and a movement commenced in the moral 
elements that has not ceased from that day to this, and never will cease. 

Those who were mourning heard his voice, and were comforted; 
those who were weary and heavy laden heard it, and found rest unto 
their souls. 

It stirred up feelings, both of opposition and of love, deeper than 
those of natural affection. It therefore set the son against the father, 
and the father against the son, and caused a man's foes to be they of 
his own household. 

Having no affinity with any of the prevalent forms of idolatry and 
corruption, and making no compromise with them, it turned the world 
upside down wherever it came. Before it, the heathen oracles were 
dumb, and the fires upon their altars went out. 

It acted as an invisible and secret force on society, communing with 
men upon their beds by night, dissuading them from wickedness, sec- 
onding the voice of conscience, giving both distinctness and energy to 
its tones, now whispering, and now speaking with a voice that made the 
stoutest tremble, of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to 
come. 

It opened heaven, and spoke to the ear of hope. 

It uncovered that world, " where their worm dieth not, and the fire 
is not quenched." 

It was stern in its rebukes of every sin, and encouraged everything 
that was " pure, and lovely, and of good report." 

Being addressed to man universally, without regard to his condition 
or his nation, it paid little regard to differences of language or habits, 
or the boundaries of states. 

Persecution was aroused; 'it kindled its fires, it brought forth Its 
wild beasts. Blood flowed like water, but the blood of the martyrs was 
the seed of the church. No external force could avail against a power 
like this. The word was spoken, and it could not be recalled. The hand 
of God had made a new adjustment in the movement of the moral 
world, and the hand of man could not put it back. No other revolution 
has ever been so extensive or so radical. 

Moving on directly to the accomplishment of its own more imme- 
diate and higher objects, the voice of Christ has incidentally caused, 
not only .moral, but social and civil revolutions. 

It has banished idolatry and polytheism, with their inseparable deg- 
radations, and pollutions, and cruelty. Human sacrifices, offered by our 
own ancestors, by the Greeks, and Romans, and Carthaginians, and the 
ancient worshipers of Baal and Moloch, — offered now in the islands of 
the Pacific, and in India, and in Africa, — cease at once where Chris- 
tianity comes. It was before its light had visited this continent, that 
seventy thousand human beings were sacrificed at the consecration of a 
single temple. 

It has banished the ancient games, in which men slew each other, 
and were exposed to the fury of wild beasts, for the amusement of the 
people. 

It has banished slavery, once so prevalent, from Europe, and from 
a large portion of this continent. 

To a great extent it has put an end to the exposure of infants. 

It has elevated woman, and given her the place in society which 
God designed she should occupy. 

By putting an end to polygamy and to frequent divorces, it has 
provided for the cultivation of the domestic and natural affections, for 
the proper training of children, and for all the unspeakable blessings 
connected with the purity and peace, and mutual love and confidence, 
of Christian families. 



JEWS, IN BABYLON 311 

It has so elevated the general standard of morality, that unnatural 
crimes, and the grosser forms of sensuality, which once appeared openly, 
and were practised and defended by philosophers, now shrink away and 
hide themselves in the darkness. 

It has diminished the frequency of wars, and mitigated their hor- 
rors. 

It has introduced the principle of general benevolence, unknown 
before, and led men to be willing to labor, and suffer, and give their 
property, for the good of those whom they have never seen, and never 
expect to see in this life. 

It has led men to labor for the welfare of the soul, and, in connec- 
tion with such labors, to provide for the sufferings and for the physical 
wants of the poor; and it is found that these two go hand in hand, and 
cannot be separated. 

If there be here and there a mistaken zealot, or a Pharisaical pro- 
fessor of Christianity, who would seem to be zealous for the spiritual 
wants of men, and yet would say to the hungry and the naked, Be ye 
clothed and be ye fed, — at the same time giving them nothing to supply 
their wants, — it is also found, not only that the truest regard for the 
present well-being of man must manifest itself through a regard for his 
spiritual wants, but also that, when a regard to those wants ceases, the 
lower charity which cares for the body will decay with it. When the 
tree begins to die at the top, where the juices are elaborated that nourish 
it, it will die down. Christianity alone has built hospitals for the sick 
and for the insane, and almshouses, and houses of refuge, and provided 
for the instruction and reformation of those confined as criminals. Was 
there ever anything in a heathen land like what is to be seen at South 
Boston? What book is it that the blind are taught to read? If there 
had been no Bible, and no such estimate of the worth of man as that 
contains, can any one believe that the great work of printing for the 
blind would have been performed? or that the deaf and dumb would 
have been so provided for? When I recently saw those blind children so 
instructed, and heard them sing; when I saw thoughts and feelings 
chasing each other like light and shade over the speaking countenance 
of Laura Bridgman, deaf and dumb and blind, I could not but feel, 
though the ordinary fountains of knowledge were still sealed up, yet 
that in a high sense it might be said to them and to her, as Peter said 
to Eneas, " Jesus Christ maketh thee whole." 

Present Effects. — ^And what Christianity has hitherto done, it is 
now doing. It is to some extent embodying its force in missionary oper- 
ations, and it has lost none of its original power. Men are found ready 
to take their lives in their hands, to forsake their country and friends 
and children, and go among the heathen, for the love of Jesus; and it 
is found that the same simple preaching of the cross that was mighty 
of old to the pulling down of strongholds, is still accompanied with a 
divine power; and nations of idolaters, savages, cannibals, infanticides, 
are seen coming up out of the night of paganism, and taking their place 
among civilized and literary and Christian nations, — " Evidences of 
Christianity," Mark Hopkins, D. D., pp. 347-351. Boston: T. R. Marvin 
d Son, 1874. 

Jews, Condition of. in Babylon. — When Cyrus Issues his decree 
giving them permission to return to the land of their fathers, these sons 
of the captives do not present the appearance of bondmen just escaping 
from their chains. They are men capable of patriotism, and of every 
high and noble feeling. They have prospered even in their captive 
state, and much more in the circumstances of their emergence from it. 



312 JOSlAri, AT MEGIDDO 

It is a delightful picture that is sketched by the prophet Isaiah, 
where he presents the daughter of Zion as lifting up her eyes like one 
awaking from a dream, and saying in her heart, "Who hath begotten 
me these, seeing I have lost my children and am desolate; a captive and 
removing to and fro; and who hath brought up these? Behold I was 
left alone; these, where had they been? " It was the first generation of 
the captives, — those who felt the strong tie of home and native land 
from which they had been torn away, — that " hanged their harps on the 
willows by the rivers of Babylon, and wept as they remembered Zion." 
Their children knew no other home but the land in which they were* 
born, except as the religious instruction, and the history with which 
they were made. familiar, and nursery hymns, brought the past and the 
distant to their minds. "With many in the second and third generation 
even this impression was deep and strong enough to create a yearning 
for the Holy Land and the temple service. As a religious feeling it 
never died out till the temple was finally destroyed by the Romans. As 
a sentiment it is living still, as is attested by the wailing-place of the 
Jews which is kept in weekly remembrance. When the strength of 
this feeling was put to the test by the several appeals that were made 
in the times of Zerubbabel and Ezra, there were many thousands to 
respond, and their caravans were as armies of the ransomed of the 
Lord. But there was a larger number whose engagements and interests 
had already become a tie of sufficient strength to hold them to a perma- 
nent home in other lands. It has been estimated that those who re- 
turned to Palestine in connection with the three above-mentioned 
rallies were to those who preferred to remain in their scattered and 
distant homes about in the proportion of one to six. 

When we come to inquire into the condition of this larger portion 
outside of Palestine, as regards their outward prosperity, and their 
intellectual, moral, and spiritual state, there are some points that 
may be easily established. We should infer from the whole subsequent 
history of the Hebrew nation that they were prompt to discover every 
opportunity to rise above poverty and want, and to find in every em- 
ployment that was open to them an avenue to sure and steady gain. 
It has been the story of Jacob and Laban, over and over again, through 
all the ages, and all over the world. What we might regard as thus 
inferentially certain in the time of Xerxes is very clearly shown by the 
stipulation of Haman, in which he engaged to pay into the king's 
treasury a large sum of money to be derived from the confiscated 
estates of the Jews. Doubtless he understood the case well enough to 
be sure that he could pay the ten thousand talents, and yet be a large 
gainer by the transaction. The same thing could be shown from the 
testimony of the post-exilic prophets, and their numerous complaints 
of the tendency on the part of their brethren to overdo in their zeal for 
commercial thrift. As it was with the returned exiles, so it was with 
those who did not return. In this matter of unfailing industry and 
shrewd bargaining the Jews of that day are proved to have been true 
to the national instinct and history, and their condition, of course, be- 
came, as Haman saw it, one of growing prosperity. — " The Book of 
Esther, A 'New Translation,^^ edited ty Rev. John W. Haley, M. A,, pp. 
lSO-132. Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1885. 

Josiah, AT Megiddo. — As the power of Assyria had dwindled, the 
power of Egypt had increased. The Egyptian kings began to dream 
again of an Asiatic empire, such as they had once held in days long 
gone by, and their first efforts were directed toward securing afresh 
the cities of the Philistines. Gaza and Ashdod were captured after a 



JUBILEE, YEAR OF 313 

long siege; Cyprus became an Egyptian province, and Pharaoh Necho, 
whose Phoenician fleet had circumnavigated Africa, set about the task 
of conquering Asia. 

Josiah was now on the throne of Judah. He still called himself 
a vassal of Assyria, and could not but see with alarm the rise of a 
new enemy, just as the old one had ceased to be formidable. In 
the name of his suzerain, therefore, he attempted to bar the advance 
of Necho ; the two armies of Egypt and Judah met on the plain of 
Megiddo, where the battle ended in the death of the Jewish king and 
the slaughter of the flower of the Jewish soldiery. The death of Josiah 
proved an irremediable disaster to the Jewish state. He left behind 
him a family torn by jealousies and supported by rival factions, a 
people hostile to the religious reforms he had carried through, and an 
army which had lost both its leader and its veterans. From henceforth 
Judah was no longer able to defend itself from an invader, whether 
Egyptian or Babylonian; and even the strong walls of Jerusalem no 
longer proved a defense in days when the method of warfare had 
changed, and a victorious army was content to sit down for years 
before a fortress until its defenders had been starved out. 

Necho's triumph, however, was short-lived. Three years after the 
battle of Megiddo (b. c. 606), he had to meet the Babylonian army, 
under its young general Nebuchadrezzar, the son of Nabopolassar, at 
the ford of the Euphrates, which was protected by the old Hittite city 
of Carchemish. Nabopolassar was now independent king of Babylonia, 
and his son had given evidence of great military capacities. He had 
disputed with the Median kingdom of Ekbatana the possession of Meso- 
potamia; and though the ruins of Nineveh and other Assyrian cities on 
the eastern bank of the Tigris continued to remain in the hands of the 
Median ruler, as well as the high road which led across northern Meso- 
potamia into Asia Minor, and passed through the patriarchal city of 
Haran, he had secured for his father the southern regions inclosed 
between the Tigris and the Euphrates. The battle of Carchemish flnally 
decided who should be the master of Western Asia. The Egyptian 
forces were completely shattered, and Necho retreated with the wreck 
of his army to his ancestral kingdom. Judah and the countries which 
adjoined it passed under the yoke of Babylonia. — " Fresh Light from 
the Ancient Monuments," A. H. Sa^ce, M. A., pp. 129, 130. London: 
The Religious Tract Society, 1890. 

Jubilee, Year or. — The jubilee was a more solemn sabbatical year, 
held every seventh sabbatical year, that is, at the end of every forty- 
nine years, or the fiftieth current year. Lev. 25: 8-10. Concerning the 
etymology of the Hebrew word jotel (whence our jubilee is derived) 
learned men are by no means agreed; the most probable of these con- 
flicting opinions is that of Calmet, who deduces it from the Hebrew 
verb hobil, to recall, or bring back; because estates, etc., that had been 
alienated were then brought back to their original owners. Such ap- 
pears to have been the meaning of the word, as understood by the 
Septuagint translators, who render the Hebrew word jobel by &<p€<ns 
[aphesis'l, remission, and by Josephus, who says that it signifled liberty. 

This festival commenced on the tenth day of the month Tisri, in 
the evening of the day of atonement (Lev. 25: 9), a time, Bishop Pat- 
rick remarks, peculiarly well chosen, as the Jews would be better dis- 
posed to forgive their brethren their debts when they had been im- 
ploring pardon of God for their own transgressions. It was proclaimed 
by the sound of trumpet throughout the whole land, on the great day 
of atonement. All debts were to be canceled; all slaves or captives 
were to be released. Even those who had voluntarily relinquished their 
freedom at the end of their six years' service, and whose ears had been 



314 JtJDGES, SERVITUDES UNDER 

m. 

bored in token of their perpetual servitude, were to be liberated at the 
jubilee; for then they were to "proclaim liberty throughout all the 
land, unto all the inhabitants thereof." Lev. 25:10. Further, in this 
year all estates that had been sold, reverted to their original proprietors, ^ 
or to the families to which they had originally belonged. This provision 
was made, that no family should be totally ruined, and doomed to per- 
petual poverty; for the family estate could not be alienated for a longer 
period than fifty years. The value and purchase money of estates there- 
fore diminished in proportion to the near approach of the jubilee. 
Lev. 25:15. From this privilege, however, houses in walled towns were 
excepted: these were to be redeemed within a year, otherwise they be- 
longed to the purchaser, notwithstanding the jubilee. Verse 30. Dur- 
ing this year, as well as in the sabbatical year, the ground also had its 
rest, and was not cultivated. — "An Introduction to the Critical Study 
and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures," Thomas Hartwell Home, B. D., 
Vol III, p. 321. London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

Judges, Servitudes under. — 
1486. The first servitude, Chushan Rishathaim of Mesopotamia, 8 years. 

Judges 3: 8. 
1478. The first judge, Othniel s. of Kenaz. Verse 9. The land had rest 

40 years. Verse 11. 
1438. The second servitude, Eglon of Moab, 18 yeafs. Verse 14. 
1420. The second judge,'Ehud. Verse 16. Rest, 80 years, during which 

time, after the death of Ehud, the third judge was Shamgar. 
1340. The third servitude, Jabin of Canaan, 20 years. Chap. 4: 3. 
.1320. The fourth judge, Barak, 40 years. Chap. 5: 31. 
1280. The fourth servitude, the Midianites, 7 years. Chap. 6: 1. 
1273. The fifth judge, Gideon, 40 years. Chap. 8 : 28. 
1233. Abimelech reigns 3 years. Chap. 9: 22. 
1230. The sixth judge. Tola, 23 years. Chap. 10: 2. 
1207. The seventh judge, Jair, 22 years. Verse 3. 
1185. The fifth servitude, Philistines and Ammonites, 18 years. 

Verse 7. 
1167. The eighth judge, Jephthah, 6 years. Chap. 12: 7. 
1161. The ninth judge, Ibzan, 7 yea'rs. Verse 9. 
[1157. Eli, high priest, 40 years.] 
1154. The tenth judge, Elon, 10 years. Verse 11. 
1144. The eleventh judge, Abdon, 8 years. Verse 14. * 
1136. The sixth servitude, Philistines, 40 years. Chap. 13:1. 

The twelfth judge, Samson, 20 years. Chap. 15: 20. 
— " Chronology of the Holy Scriptures'' Henry Browne, M. A., pp. 280, 
281. London: John W. Parker, 1844. 

Judges, Six Invasions in. — The book of Judges is so named 
because it records the exploits of some of those great men. It makes us 
more or less acquainted with twelve of these judges: 1. Othniel, of 
the tribe of Judah; 2. Ehud, Benjamite; 3. Deborah, a prophetess, 
who was assisted by Barak; 4. Gideon, of Manasseh; 5. Abimelech, his 
son; 6. Tola, of Issachar; 7. Jair, of Gilead; 8. Jephthah, also of Gilead; 
9. Ibzan, of Bethlehem; 10. Elon, of Zebulun; 11. Abdon, a Pirathonite; 
and 12. Samson, of Dan. The office of Samuel was so unlike that ..of 
the military judges, that he can hardly be classed among them. 

The Six Invasions. — Of several of these judges little or nothing is 
told us beyond the fact that they judged Israel for a certain number of 
years. The military judges of greatest eminence were Othniel, Ehud, 
Deborah (with Barak), Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson. Each of these 
achieved a great deliverance for his country from a particular enemy, — 



JUDGES, SCHEME OF 



315 



Othniel, from the Mesopotamians; Ehud, from the Moabites; Deborah 
and Barak, from the Canaanites; Gideon, from the Midianites and 
Amalakites; Jephthah, from the Ammonites; and Samson, from the 
Philistines. It must not be supposed that each of these different ene- 
mies brought the whole country under their dominion. Sometimes, 
indeed, they did; but on other occasions it was only the part of Pales- 
tine that lay nearest to their respective territories that suffered from 
their attacks. The Mesopotamians, the Moabites, the Midianites, and 
the Ammonites would make their attack on the eastern border, and 
would, therefore, be most troublesome to the tribes east of the Jordan; 
the Canaanites would give most annoyance on the north, and the 
Philistines on the southwest. 

Insecurity of the Eastern Trides. — It thus appears that, though the 
territories on which Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh had 
set their hearts, were remarkably fertile and beautiful, they were very 
insecure; and often, no doubt, these tribes must have felt that it would 
have been wiser for them to have gone with their brethren, and to have 
had the Jordan and its deep valley between them and their Eastern foes. 
Apostasy from the true faith seems to have broken out oftener among 
them than among the other tribes, owing to their proximity to so 
many idolatrous neighbors. For this reason they suffered heavier chas- 
tisements, and they were the first to go into captivity. — "A Manual of 
Bible History,'' Rev. William G. Blaikie, D. D., LL. D., pp. 194, 195. 
London: T. Nelson & Sons, 1906. 



Judges, Scheme of. — 



Judge 

1. Othniel . . 

2. Ehud 

3. Shamgar 

4. Deborah . 
Barak . . . 

5. Gideon . . 

6. Abimelech 

7. Tola 

8. Jair 

9. Jephthah 

10. Ibzan . . . 

11. Elon 

12. Abdon . . . 

13. Eli 

14. Samson . 

15. Samuel . . 



Tribe 

Judah 

Benjamin . . . 
Judah (?) ... 
Ephraim 
Naphtali 
W. Manasseh . 
W. Manasseh 
Issachar .... 
E. Manasseh 

Gad 

Zebulun(?) . 
Zebulun .... 
Ephraim (?) 

Levi 

Dan 

Levi 



Enemy 

Mesopotamians 
Moabites .... 
Philistines . . . 
Canaanites 



Oppression Rest Judgeship 



Midianites 



,18, 



20, 



Ammonites 



Philistines 
Philistines 
Philistines 



,18. 



,40, 
,80. 



40. 



40, 



23. 
22, 
.6, 



,.7, 
,10. 



40. 

,20. 



— " Syllabus for Old Testament Study,'' John R. Sampey. D. D., LL. B., 
p. 60. Louisville, Ky.: Baptist World Publishing Co.. 1908. 

Kadesh-Bamea, Location of. — The very earliest mention of this 
place is in a connection which would seem to put it in the heart of the 
Az^zimeh mountain tract, at some point eastward of Jebel Muwaylih 
and of Wady Aboo Retemat, near which all the great highways of the 
desert come together in a common trunk; and every subsequent men- 
tion of the place either points directly to the same locality, or is con- 
formable to it. — ''Kadesh-Bamea," H. Clay Trumbull, D. D., p. 155. 
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1884. 



In view of all the facts before us, there are certain conclusions 
which jmust. bp admitted as fair, if not recognized as inevitable: 



316 KADESH-BARNEA 

1. The site of Kadesh-Barnea seems identified at 'Ayn Qadees. 
Every requirement of the Bible narrative, and every condition insisted 
on by the critics as essential to the identification, are met in this place. 
Every objection, also, that has been raised against this identification, 
is found to have no force in the light of close examination. 

2. This identification, with its linkings, necessitates the reshaping 
of much of the geography of the southern border of Palestine and the 
neighboring regions, as indicated in the maps, cyclopedias, commen- 
taries, and guidebooks, now in common use. For example, as the west- 
ernmost limit of Edom is not indicated in the Bible except by its rela- 
tion to Kadesh-Barnea, that limit now passes from an unknown to a 
known quantity, by the fixing of a site which is described as just beyond 
it. So, also, the traditional Mount Hor must be recognized as an impos- 
sible Mount Hor; and the central and northern 'Arabah must no longer 
be counted a main camping-ground of the Israelites in their wanderings. 

3. It is clearer than ever that many of the supposed confusions of 
geographical data in the Pentateuch, are the results of later error con- 
cerning the region in question. And there is even stronger reason than 
before for believing that Moses and Hobab were more familiar with the 
desert of Sinai and the Negeb border of Canaan, than the wisest of 
the destructive critics of today. — " Kadesh-Barnea''' H. Clay Trumbull, 
D. D., p. 320. New York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 1884. 

Kadesh-Barnea, Identification of. — This place, the scene of Mir- 
iam's death, was the farthest point which the Israelites reached in their 
direct road to Canaan; it was also that whence the spies were sent, 
and where, on their return, the people broke out into murmuring, upon 
which their strictly penal term of wandering began. Num. 13: 3, 26; 
14: 29-33; 20: 1; Deut. 2: 14. It is probable that the term " Kadesh," 
though applied to signify a " city," yet had also a wider application to 
a region in which Kadesh-meribah certainly,, and Kadesh-Barnea prob- 
ably, indicates a precise spot. In Genesis 14: 7, Kadesh is identified 
with En-mishpat, the " fountain of judgment." It has been supposed, 
from Numbers 13: 21, 26, and Numbers 20, that there were two places 
of the name of Kadesh, one in the wilderness of Paran and the other 
in that of Zin; but it is more probable that only one place is meant, 
and that Zin is but a part of the great desert of Paran. — "A Dictionary 
of the Bidle,'' William Smith, LL. D., p. 332. Teacher's edition. Phila- 
delphia: Porter and Coates, copyright 1884. 

Kadesh-Barnea, Importance of. — This place comes into view as a 
strategic stronghold in the earliest military campaign of history; at the 
beginning — in the time of the Father of the faithful — of the yet pro- 
gressing struggle of the world powers with the kingdom of God on earth. 
It looms up as the objective point of the Israelites in their movement 
from Sinai to the Promised land. It is the place of their testing, of 
their failure, of their judging, and of their dispersion. It is their 
rallying center for the forty years of their wandering, and the place 
of their reassembling for their final move into the land of their longings. 
It is the scene of repeated and varied displays of God's power and of 
his people's faithlessness. And finally it is the hinge and pivot of the 
southern boundary of the Holy Land in history, and of the Holy Land 
in prophecy, [p. 15] . . . 

In the history of the Israelitish wanderings, Kadesh-Barnea stands 
over against Sinai in interest and importance. Even Sinai takes a 
minor place when the element of time is considered; for the Israelites 
were at the latter point less than a year, while Kadesh-Barnea seems to 
have been their headquarters, or chief rallying place, during a space of 
more than thirty-seven years. > 



KINGDOM OF GOD 317 

When the unorganized throng of Israelites, which had been hur- 
ried out from the bondage of Egypt into the lawless freedom of the 
desert, had become a compact nation, with its divinely given govern- 
ment and rulers, and its experiences of discipline, the divine command 
was given for the departure of the mighty host of that nation, from the 
forming-school of Sinai, across the desert to the sacred rendezvous of 
Kadesh, the divinely chosen camping ground and sanctuary, on the 
borders of the Promised Land. " The Lord our God spake unto us 
in Horeb," says Moses, " saying, Ye have dwelt long enough in this 
mount: turn you, and take your journey, and go to the mount of the 
Amorites. . . . And when we departed from Horeb, we went through all 
that great and terrible wilderness, which ye saw by the Way of the 
Mountain of the Amorites, as the Lord our God commanded us; and we 
came to Kadfesh-Barhea." 

Kadesh-Barnea once reached, and history was there made rapidly, 
by the people who were yet unready for their inheritance, [pp. 16, 17] 
— "Kadesh-Barnea" H. Clay Trumbull, D. D., pp. 16-17. New York: 
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1884. 

Kingdom of God, Relation of the Captivity to. — The exile 
forms a great turning-point in the development of the kingdom of God 
which he had founded in Israel. With that event the form of the 
theocracy established at Sinai comes to an end, and then begins the 
period of the transition to a new form, which was to be established by 
Christ, and has been actually established by him. The form according 
to which the people of God constituted an earthly kingdom, taking its 
place beside the other kingdoms of the nations, was not again restored 
after the termination of the seventy years of the desolations of Jeru- 
salem and Judah, which had been prophesied by Jeremiah, because the 
Old Testament theocracy had served its end. God the Lord had, during 
its continuance, showed daily not only that he was Israel's God, a merci- 
ful and gracious God, who was faithful to his covenant toward those 
who feared him and walked in his commandments and laws, and who 
could make his people great and glorious, and had power to protect them 
against all their enemies; but also that he was a mighty and a jealous 
God, who visits the blasphemers of his holy name according to their 
iniquity, and is able to fulfil his threatenings no less than his promises. 
It was necessary that the people of Israel should know by experience 
that a transgressing of the covenant and a turning away from the service 
of God does not lead to safety, but hastens onward to ruin; that deliver- 
ance from sin, and salvation, life, and happiness can be found only 
with the Lord, who is rich in grace and in faithfulness, and can only be 
reached by a humble walking according to his commandments. 

The restoration of the Jewish state after the exile was not a re- 
establishment of the Old Testament kingdom of God. When Cyrus 
granted liberty to the Jews to return to their own land, and commanded 
them to rebuild the temple of- Jehovah in Jerusalem, only a very small 
band of captives returned; the greater part remained scattered among 
the heathen. Even those who went home from Babylon to Canaan were 
not set free from subjection to the heathen world power, but remained, 
in the land which the Lord had given to their fathers, servants to it. 
Though now again the ruined walls of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah 
were restored, and the temple also was rebuilt, and the offering up of 
sacrifice renewed, yet the glory of the Lord did not again enter into the 
new temple, which was also without the ark of the covenant and the 
mercy-seat, so as to hallow it as the place of his glorious presence 
among his people. The temple worship among the Jews after the cap- 



318 KINGDOM OF GOD 

tivity was without its soul, the real presence of the Lord in the sanctu- 
ary; the high priest could no longer go before God's throne of grace In 
the holy of holies to sprinkle the atoning blood of the sacrifice toward 
the ark of the covenant, and to accomplish the reconciliation of the 
congregation with their God, and could no longer find out, by means of 
the Urim and Thummim, the will of the Lord. [pp. 7-9] . . . 

The space of 500 years, from the end of the Babylonish captivity to 
the appearance of Christ, can be considered as the last period of the 
old covenant only in so far as in point of time it precedes the founda- 
tion of the new covenant; but it was in reality, for that portion of the 
Jewish people who had returned to Judea, no deliverance from sub- 
jection to the power of the heathen, no reintroduction into the king- 
dom of God, but only a period of transition from the old to the new 
covenant, during which Israel were prepared for the reception of the 
Deliverer coming out of Zion, In this respect this period may be com- 
pared with the forty, or more accurately, the thirty-eight years of the 
wanderings of Israel in the Arabian desert. As God did not withdraw 
all the tokens of his gracious covenant from the race that was doomed 
to die in the wilderness, but guided them by his pillar of cloud and fire, 
and gave them manna to eat, so he gave grace to those who had 
returned from Babylon to Jerusalem to build again the temple and to 
restore the sacrificial service, whereby they prepared themselves for 
the appearance of him who should build the true temple, and make an 
everlasting atonement by the offering up of his life as a sacrifice for 
the sins of the world. 

If the prophets before the captivity, therefore, connect the deliver- 
ance of Israel from Babylon and their return to Canaan immediately 
with the setting up of the kingdom of God in its glory, without giving 
any indication that between the end of the Babylonish exile and the 
appearance of the Messiah a long period would intervene, this uniting 
together of the two events is not to be explained only from the perspec- 
tive and apotelesmatic character of the prophecy, but has its foundation 
in the very nature of the thing itself. The prophetic perspective, by 
virtue of which the inward eye of the seer beholds only the elevated 
summits of historical events as they unfold themselves, and not the 
valleys of the common incidents of history which lie between these 
heights, is indeed peculiar to prophecy in general, and accounts for the 
circumstance that the prophecies as a rule give no fixed dates, and 
apotelesmatically bind together the points of history which open the 
way to the end, with the end itself. 

But this formal peculiarity of prophetic contemplation we must not 
extend to the prejudice of the actual truth of the prophecies. The fact 
of the uniting together of the future glory of the kingdom of God under 
the Messiah with the deliverance of Israel from exile, has perfect his- 
torical veracity. The banishment of the covenant people from the land 
of the Lord and their subjection to the heathen, was not only the last 
of those judgments which God had threatened against his degenerate 
people, but it also continues till the perverse rebels are exterminated, 
and the penitents are turned with sincere hearts to God the Lord and 
are saved through Christ. Consequently the exile was for Israel the last 
space for repentance which God in his faithfulness to his covenant 
granted to them. Whoever is not brought by this severe chastisement 
to repentance and reformation, but continues opposed to the gracious 
will of God, on him falls the judgment of death; and only they who 
turn themselves to the Lord, their God and Saviour, will be saved, 
gathered from among the heathen, brought in within the bonds of the 
covenant of grace through Christ, and become partakers of the promised 



LOGOS, MEANING OF 319 

riches of grace in his kingdom, [pp. 9, 10] — " The Book of the Prophet 
Daniel," C. F. Keil, translated from the German' h'lf Rev. M. G. Easton, 
A. M„ Introduction, pp. 7-10. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872. 

Law. Universality of Mobal. — The ten commandments, while 
given primarily to the Hebrews, are of universal application. We shall 
never get beyond the necessity of knowing and keeping them. — " Sylla- 
bus for Old Testament Study," John R. Sampey, D. D., LL. D., p. 51. 
Louisville, Ky.: Baptist World Puhlishing Company, 1908. 

Logos, Meaning of. — The term Logos, then, denotes neither here 
nor anywhere else in the writings of John the " reason," but always the 
" Word," who is with God and comes into the world with the function 
of making known the thoughts and purposes of God. The Word is not 
an abstract revelation made to the world, but something greater, tran- 
scending the earthly sphere and belonging to that of the divine life. 
More exactly, the Word is a person communicating with God as with 
one of the same nature, then assuming a fleshly form and proclaiming, 
without loss of his supernatural being or unequaled closeness to God, 
that which he has seen of the Father and the Father's counsels. — The 
New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VII, art. 
" Logos," p. IS. 

Logos, John's and Phelo's. — When it is assumed that the Logos 
of St. John is but a reproduction of the Logos of Philo the Jew, this 
assumption overlooks fundamental discrepancies of thought, and rests 
its case upon occasional coincidences of language. For besides the con- 
trast between the abstract ideal Logos of Philo, and the concrete per- 
sonal Logos of the fourth evangelist, . . . there are even deeper differ- 
ences, which would have made it impossible that an apostle should have 
sat in spirit as a pupil at the feet of the Alexandrian, or that he should 
have allowed himself to breathe the same general religious atmosphere. 
— " The Divinity} of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," Henry Parry 
Liddon, M. A., p. 68. London: Rivingtons. 1868. 

Logos, Revealed in Flesh. — The fourth Gospel essays a mightier 
problem, viz., to connect the person and the history of Jesus, on the 
one hand, with the inmost being of God, and, on the other, with the 
course and end of the universe. 

1. The idea and purpose of the writer can best be understood 
through the prologue which introduces the history. He begins at a 
higher altitude than the ancient seer who saw God " in the beginning " 
create the world, for he attempts to define the sort of God who created. 
Eternity. was not to him a solitude, nor God a solitary. God had never 
been alone, for with him was the Logos, and the Logos was at once God, 
and " in the beginning face to face with God " ( ovros ^v iv dpxv 7rp6s rbp 
dedv [houtos en en arche pros ton theon']). And he was organ of 
the Godhead in the work of creation: "all things were made by him." 
And the life he gave he possessed; in him the creation lived, and his 
life was its light. But this light was confronted by a darkness which 
would not be overcome, though it was not possible that the Logos should 
consent to have his light overcome of the darkness. In brief but preg- 
nant phrases the author describes the method and means which the 
Logos used in this supreme conflict. His relation to the creation never 
ceased; at every point and every moment he was active within it. In 
this way he stood distinguished from the prophet or preacher, who 
had his most recent type in the Baptist. 



320 LOGOS, MEANING OF t 

John was a man sent from God for an occasion; before it he had no 
being, after it he had no function; his sole duty was to be a witness, 
to testify concerning the Light, " in order that all men through him 
might believe." Over against this ephemeral witness bearer, who ap- 
pears, lives his brief day, does his little work, and then departs, stands 
the true, the eternal Light, He shines forever and everywhere; 
illumines all men, even though they be held to be heathen. With 
threefold emphasis the idea is repeated: "He was in the world," did 
not enter or come to be within it, but abode in it, was as old as it, 
is as young as it, unaffected by birth, untouched by death. He was, 
and had always been, for "the world was made by him;" man — no 
selected people simply, but collective Man — was made by him, and 
how could he desert the work of his own hands? But it had deserted 
him: "the world knew him not." The peoples loved the darkness and 
knew not the Light. Even those who claimed to be the elect were 
blind. " He came unto his own, and his own received him not." The 
children of the covenant, the heirs of the promise, had been no better 
than the heathen: the Logos who lived and worked in their midst they 
did not know. But in one respect they had greater excellence: sight 
was granted to some, a remnant saw and believed, and he of his grace 
gave them the right to " become children of God." And this adoption 
came not of blood or descent or act of man; it was " of God." It was a 
vain boast to say, "We have Abraham to our father; " the only title to 
divine sonship came of divine grace. 

And now there arrived the supreme moment in human experience: 
the Logos, who was Creator and uncreated Light, who had never 
ceased to be related to all men or to be without his own even among 
the Jews, "he became flesh." The phrase is peculiar; he does not say, 
as in the case of John, ey^vero dvOpwiros dTreo-raX/i^vos irapa deov [egeneto 
anthropos apestahnenos para theou], "there came a man sent from 
God; " but he says, 6 \670s aap^ iyevero [ho logos sarx egeneto], " the Word 
became flesh." There is no break in this continuity; it is the same 
Word who was with God, who was God, who made the worlds, who was 
the true Light, who shone in the darkness, who continued to shine 
among the heathen, who visited his own, and graciously made those 
who believed sons of God, who now becomes flesh. — " The Philosophy 
of the Christian Religion," Andrew Murtin Fairbairn, M. A., D. D., 
LL. D., pp. 451-453. New York: George H. Doran Company, copyright 
1902. 

Logos, Translated by " Son " in John's Gospel. — A670S [Logos'\ is 
one of the dark terms we owe to Heraclitus; from him it passed into 
the school of the Stoics, and was there stamped with their image and 
superscription. In the Hellenism of Alexandria it played a great part, 
and was made by Philo a mediator between God and the universe, with 
a vast variety of names and functions: he conceived it now as abstract, 
now as personal; described it now as archangel, now as archetype; here 
as the Idea idearum which is ever with God, there as " the everlasting 
law of the eternal God, which is the most stable and secure support of 
the universe." Philo's logos is now the image of God, now his eldest or 
first-born Son, and again the organ by which he made the world. Here 
God is light, and the Word its archetype and example; and there God 
is life, while all who live irrationally {akbyias {alogos']) are separated 
from the life which is in him. 

It is not to be doubted, then, that John neither invented his tran- 
scendental terms nor the ideas they expressed. But he did a more dar- 
ing and original thing, — he brought them out of the clouds into the 
market place, incorporated, personalized, individuated them. He dis- 



LORD'S SUPPER 321 

tinctly saw what the man who had coined the terms had been dimly 
feeling after, — that a solitary Deity was an impotent abstraction, with- 
out life, without love, void of thought, incapable of movement, and 
divorced from all reality. But his vision passed through the region of 
speculation, and discovered the Person who realized his ideal. Logos he 
translated by Son, and in doing so he did two things: revolutionized the 
conception of God, and changed an abstract and purely metaphysical idea 
into a concrete and intensely ethical person. — " The Philosophy of the 
Christian Religion," Andrew Martin Fairdairn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., pp. 
454, 455. New York: George H. Doran Company, copyright 1902. 

Lord's Supper, Early Intebpketation of. — The Christian church 
attached from the beginning a high and mysterious import to the bread 
and wine used in the Lord's Supper, as the symbols of the body and 
blood of Christ, to be received by the church with thanksgiving (Eucha- 
rist). It was not the tendency of the age to analyze the symbolical In 
a critical and philosophical manner, and to draw metaphysical distinc- 
tions between its constituent parts, viz., the outward sign on the one 
hand, and the thing represented by it on the other. On the contrary, 
the real and the symbolical were so blended that the symbol did not 
supplant the fact, nor did the fact dislodge the symbol. 

Thus it happens that in the writings of the Fathers of this period 
we meet with passages which speak distinctly of signs, and at the same 
time with others which speak openly of a real participation in the body 
and blood of Christ. Yet we may already discern some leading ten- 
dencies. Ignatius, as well as Justin and Irenaeus, laid great stress on 
the mysterious connection subsisting between the Logos and the ele- 
ments; though this union was sometimes misunderstood in a super- 
stitious sense, or perverted in the hope of producing magical effects. 
Tertullian and Cyprian, though somewhat favorable to the super- 
natural, are nevertheless representatives of the symbolical intrepreta- 
tion. The Alexandrian school, too, espoused the latter view, though the 
language of Clement on this subject (intermingling an ideal mysticism) 
is less definite than that of Origen. In the apostolical Fathers, and, with 
more definite reference to the Lord's Supper, in the writings of Justin 
and Irenaeus, the idea of a sacrifice already occurs; by which, however, 
they did not understand a daily repeated propitiatory sacrifice of 
Christ (in the sense of the later Roman Church), but a thank offering 
to be presented by Christians themselves. 

This idea, which may have had its origin in the custom of offering 
oblations, was brought into connection with the service for the com- 
memoration of the dead, and thus imperceptibly prepared the way for 
the later doctrine of masses for the deceased. It further led to the 
notion of a sacrifice which is repeated by the priest (but only symboli- 
cally), an idea first found in Cyprian. It is not quite certain, but 
probable, that the Ebionites celebrated the Lord's Supper as a commemo- 
rative feast; the mystical meals of some Gnostics, on the contrary, bear 
only a very distant resemblance to the Lord's Supper. — "A History of 
Christian Doctrines,''' Dr. K. R. Hagenhach, Vol. I, pp. 281. 288. Edin- 
Mirgh: T. d- T. Clark, 1880. ' 

Lord's Supper, Controversy Coxcerning. — A new reaction of the 
old antagonism between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian schools, in 
the doctrine of the person of Christ, reappeared in the controversy be- 
tween the Lutheran and Reformed churches on the dogma of the Lord's 
Supper. Luther, in disputing with Zwingli, in order to establish the 
presence of the body of Christ in the Supper, had asserted the omni- 
21 



322 LORD'S SUPPER 

presence of his human nature, but afterward had not attached so much 
importance to this point. When, after the middle of the sixteenth cen- 
tury, the dispute was revived, Brenz again brought forward this propo- 
sition, and the zealous Lutherans have since advocated the doctrine of 
the ubiquity of Christ's body. Zwingli and Calvin asserted, on the 
contrary, that although Christ, as to his person, is present everywhere, 
yet in his human nature he cannot be omnipresent. Melanchthon and 
his school also declared themselves against this doctrine. — " Lectures 
on the History of Christian Dogmas," Dr. Augustus Neander, Vol. II, 
pp. 652, 653. London: George Bell & Sons, 1882. 

Lord's Supper, Luther's Views of. — Luther, at first in opposition 
to the Catholic Church, had here given prominence to the subjective 
element. Combating the eflBcacy of the opus operatum, he made every- 
thing dependent on faith. From this point he could attain to a mere 
symbolical conception by which the dogma of the mass would have 
been at once annihilated. When he first occupied himself with these 
inquiries, the thought actually occurred to him whether the bread and 
wine at the Supper had not a mere symbolical meaning. " If any one," 
he writes, " five years before could have informed me that in the sacra- 
ment there is nothing but bread and wine, he would have rendered me 
a great service. I have suffered sore temptations respecting it." But 
as it was now important for him to maintain the objective in the doc- 
trine of the sacraments, and moreover, as the enemy of allegorical in- 
terpretation, he wished to understand the words of the institution 
literally, he came to the conclusion to reject the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation, but to hold firmly that the body and blood of Christ were 
truly present in the bread and wine. In his treatise on the " Babylonish 
Captivity of the Church," where he first occupies himself with this 
subject, he calls transubstantiation a scholastic subtle fiction. An ex- 
pression of Pierre d'Ailly had led him to perceive that the Schoolmen 
had already remarked the contradiction of this doctrine to Holy Writ; 
he acknowledges that it drove them to a forced interpretation of the 
words of the institution, and then says, " Truly, if I cannot succeed in 
knowing how the bread can be the body of Christ, yet I will bring my 
understanding captive under the obedience of Christ. As iron and fire 
are two substances, and yet when mixed are one glowing substance, so 
it is with the connection of the body and blood with the bread and 
wine." Luther persisted in this tendency. His doctrine continued to 
be, that the body and blood were with, in, and under the bread and 
wine, and that both believers and unbelievers received them. — Id., pp. 
694, 695. 

Lord's Supper, Views of Reformers Concerning. — While the Re- 
formers made common cause in their opposition not only to the doctrine 
of transubstantiation, but especially to the sacrifice of the mass, and 
the withholding of the cup from the laity, all of which they rejected 
as unscriptural, they still differed widely in their opinions concerning 
the positive aspect of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Different 
interpretations of the words of the institution were at short intervals 
advanced by Carlstadt, Zwingli, and CEcolampadius. Luther opposed all 
these in his controversial writings, and in the Colloquium of Marburg 
(October, 1529), and even to the close of his life he insisted upon the 
literal interpretation of the words of the institution of the Supper; 
and, as a consequence, upon the actual reception with the mouth of the 
glorified body of Christ, present in the bread, and of his real blood. 
In accordance with his views, the authors of the symbolical books 
of the Lutheran Church declared the doctrine of the real presence of 



MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 323 

I 
Christ's body and blood in the eucharist (consubstantiation), and 
along with it (in part) that of the ubiquity of his body, to be the 
orthodox doctrine of the church. The Reformed had never denied a 
presence of Christ in the eucharist, though they did not expressly em- 
phasize it. But they looked for this presence, as one which testified 
itself to faith, not in the bread, and interpreted the reception of Christ 
in the ordinance, not as that of his body received by the mouth, but 
as a spiritual participation. Calvin, in particular, after the example 
of Bucer, emphasized this spiritual participation, and thus made the 
Lord's Supper not a mere sign, but a pledge and seal of divine grace 
imparted to the communicant. Thus there always remained this im- 
portant difference, that even in Calvin's view it is only the believer 
who is united with Christ in the sacrament; and that the body of 
Christ, as such, is not in the bread, but in heaven, from whence, in a 
mysterious and dynamic way, it is imparted to the communicant; while, 
on the contrary, Luther, from the objective point of view, maintained 
that the unbelieving also partake of the body of Christ, though to their 
own hurt, in, with, and under the bread. The view gf Schwenkfeld, 
resting upon a perversion of the words of institution, had but slight 
influence. The most prosaic view is that of the Socinians, Arminians, 
and Mennonites, who, in connection with their more negative opinions 
on the nature of the sacraments, regarded the Lord's Supper merely 
as an act of commemoration. And lastly, the Quakers believed that, 
in consequence of their internal and spiritual union with Christ, they 
might wholly dispense with partaking of his body. [The Westminster 
Confession is in harmony with the views of Calvin; the Independents 
and Baptists adopted substantially the theory of Zwingli. The Church 
of England, particularly in the catechism, laid more stress upon the 
real presence, and in its earlier formularies upon the idea of the 
eucharistic sacrifice.] — "A History of Christian Doctrines'' Dr. K. R. 
Hagenbach, Vol. Ill, pp. 148-150. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1881. 

Maccabees, Books of. — Four books which bear the common title 
of " Maccabees " are found in some MSS. of the LXX. Two of these 
were included in the early current Latin versions of the Bible, and 
thence passed into the Vulgate. As forming part of the Vulgate they 
were received as canonical by the Council of Trent, and retained among 
the Apocrypha by the Reformed churches. The two other books ob- 
tained no such wide circulation, and have only a secondary connection 
with the Maccabean history. 

1. The First Book of Maccabees contains a history of the patriotic 
struggle of the Jews in resisting the oppressions of the Syrian kings, 
from the first resistance of Mattathias to the settled sovereignty and 
death of Simon, a period of thirty-three years, b. c. 168-135. The great 
subject of the book begins with the enumeration of the Maccabean family 
(chap. 2: 1-5), which is followed by an account of the part which the 
aged Mattathias took in rousing and guiding the spirit of his country- 
men (chap, 2: 6-70). The remainder of the narrative is occupied with 
the exploits of Mattathias's five sons. The great marks of trustworthi- 
ness are everywhere conspicuous. Victory and failure and despondency 
are, on the whole, chronicled with the same candor. There is no at- 
tempt to bring into open display the working of Providence. The 
testimony of antiquity leaves no doubt that the book was first written 
in Hebrew. Its whole structure points to Palestine as the place of its 
composition. There is, however, considerable doubt as to its date. Per- 
haps we may place it between b. c. 120-100. The date and person of the 
Greek translator are wholly undetermined. 

2, The Secoiid Book of M9'Ccabees,--r The history of the second book 



324 MAGNA CHARTA 

of Maccabees begins some years earlier than that of the first book, 
and closes with the victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor. It thus 
embraces a period of twenty years, from b. c. 180 to b. c. 161. The 
writer himself distinctly indicates the source of his narrative, — " the 
five books of Jason of Cyrene " (chap. 2: 23), of which he designed to 
furnish a short and agreeable epitome for the benefit of those who 
would be deterred from studying the larger work. Of Jason himself 
nothing more is known than may be gleaned from this mention of him. 
The Second Book of Maccabees is not nearly so trustworthy as the first. 
In the second book the groundwork of facts is true, but the dress in 
which the facts are presented is due in part at least to the narrator. 
The latter half of the book (chaps. 8-15) is to be regarded as a series 
of special incidents from the life of Judas, illustrating the providential 
interference of God in behalf of his people, true in substance, but 
embellished in form, 

3. The Third Book of Maccabees contains the history of events 
which preceded the great Maccabean struggle, beginning with b. c. 217. 

4. The Fourth Book of Maccabees contains a rhetorical narrative 
of the martyrdom of Eleazar and of the " Maccabean family," following 
in the main the same outline as 2 Maccabees. — "A Dictionary of the 
Bible," William Smith, LL. D., pp. 371, 372, Teacher's edition. Phila- 
delphia: Porter and Coates, 1884. 

Magna Charta, Conditions Leading to. — In England, Innocent's 
interference assumed a different aspect. He attempted to assert his 
control over the church in spite of the king, and put the nation under 
interdict because John would not permit Stephen Langton to be Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury. It was utterly impossible that affairs could go 
on with such an empire within an empire. For his contumacy, John 
was excommunicated; but, base as he was, he defied his punishment 
for four years. Hereupon his subjects were released from their alle- 
giance, and his kingdom offered to any one who would conquer it. In 
his extremity, the king of England is said to have sent a messenger to 
Spain, offering to become a Mohammedan. The religious sentiment 
was tlien no higher in him than it was, under a like provocation, in 
the king of France, whose thoughts turned in the same direction. But, 
pressed irresistibly by Innocent, John was compelled to surrender his 
realm, agreeing to pay to the Pope, in addition to Peter's pence, one 
thousand marks a year as a token of vassalage. When the prelates 
whom he had refused or exiled returned, he was compelled to receive 
them on his knees — humiliations which aroused the indignation of the 
stout English barons, and gave strength to those movements which 
ended in extorting Magna Charta. 

Never, however, was Innocent more mistaken than in the character 
of Stephen Langton. John had, a second time, formally surrendered 
his realm to the Pope, and done homage to the legate for it; but Stephen 
Langton was the first — at a meeting of the chiefs of the revolt against 
the king, held in London, Aug. 25, 1213 — to suggest that they should 
demand a renewal of the charter of Henry I. From this suggestion 
Magna Charta originated. Among the miracles of the age, he was the 
greatest miracle of all; his patriotism was stronger than his profession. 
The wrath of the pontiff knew no bounds when he learned that the 
Great Charter had been conceded. In his bull, he denounced it as base 
and ignominious; he anathematized the king if he observed it; he de- 
clared it null and void. It was not the policy of the Roman Court to 
permit so much as the beginnings of such freedom. — " History of the 
Intellectual Development of Europe," John William Draper, M. D., 
LL, D., Vol. II, pp. 54, 55. New York; Harper d Brothers, 1876. 



MAGNA CHART A 325 

Magna Charta, Principal Provisions of. — The Great Charter, 
called by Hallam the " keystone of English liberty," was granted by 
King John at Runnymede in the year 1215. In addition to the preamble, 
the Charter contains sixty-three clauses, and is partly remedial and 
partly, as Coke says, " declaratory of the principal grounds of the fun- 
damental laws of England." Its principal provisions are: (1) A decla- 
ration that the Church of England is free. (2) Feudal obligations are 
defined and limited. (3) Law courts are to be held at fixed places, 
assize courts are established, and earls and barons are to be tried by 
their peers. (4) No extraordinary taxation without consent. (5) No 
banishment or imprisonment save by judgment of peers and the law 
of the land. (6) No denial, sale, or delay of justice. (7) One stand- 
ard of weights and measures. The Magna Charta was confirmed many 
times by different kings, and the form which appears in the Revised 
Statutes is the confirmation by Edward I in 1297. — Nelson's Encyclo- 
pedia, Vol. VII, art. ''Magna Charta," p. 521. 

Magna Charta, Fundamental Principle of. — Now what was the 
fundamental principle and the great merit of the Magna Charta? It 
was this: that it established the reign of law instead of the arbitrary 
will of the monarch. It meant that henceforth the king should be under 
the law, that he should no longer be an absolute ruler, that the law 
and not the monarch should be supreme in the land. When Arch- 
bishop Langton read the articles to King John, he broke out in a rage, 
and swore that he would never enslave himself to his barons. He was 
king and intended to remain king, and his word alone should be law. 
"Why did they not at once demand his throne?" he said. But at 
length he was compelled to submit. The barons and the people of 
England, with the primate at their head, had sworn to bring back the 
ancient laws of Edward the Confessor and Henry I, and so the tyrant 
had no choice but to bow to their will and aflEix his signature to the 
charter. By that charter resistance to the royal power was made law- 
ful, and in the struggle that followed, it was the king who was the 
rebel. " Christendom was amazed at the spectacle of a king obliged to 
surrender at discretion to his subjects." And the spectacle of the 
king's humiliation at Runnymede was to stand out in the minds of 
future generations in strong light. — From a sermon delivered in Epiph- 
any Church, Washington, D. C, on Sunday, June 13, 1915, by the rector, 
the Rev. Randolph H. McKim, D. D., LL. D. 

Magna Charta, Importance of. — The Great Charter did not cre- 
ate new rights and privileges, but in its main points simply reasserted 
and confirmed old usages and laws. It was immediately violated by 
John and afterward was disregarded by many of his successors; but the 
people always clung to it as the warrant and safeguard of their liber- 
ties, and again and again forced tyrannical kings to renew and con- 
firm its provisions, and swear solemnly to observe all its articles. 

Considering the far-reaching consequences that resulted from the 
granting of Magna Charta, — the securing of constitutional liberty as 
an inheritance for the English-speaking race in all parts of the world, 
— it must always be considered the most important concession that a 
freedom-loving people ever wrung from a tyrannical sovereign. — " Me- 
di(pval and Modern History," Philip Van Ness Myers, p. 203. Boston: 
Ginn d- Co., 1919. . 

Magna Charta, Annulled by Innocent III. — 'When the English 
barons wrested from the stubborn king the great Magna Charta in 1215, 
Pope Innocent III championed the cause of the king, his vassal, against 



326 MAN, ORIGIN OF 

the barons. He called a council, annulled the Magna Charta, issued a 
manifesto against the barons, and ordered the bishops to excommuni- 
cate them. He suspended Archbishop Langton from office for siding 
with the barons against the king, and directly appointed the Archbishop 
of York. — " The Rise of the Mediwval Church," Alexander Clarence 
Flick, Ph. D., Litt. D., p. 554, 555. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1909. 

Failing in his contest with his barons, John complained to Inno- 
cent of the extortion of Magna Charta, and astutely suggested that his 
troubles with his rebellious subjects prevented him from fulfilling the 
vow which he had taken to enter upon a crusade. Innocent hastened 
to his relief; pronounced the Charter void, forbade his performing its 
promises, and threatened excommunication against all who should in- 
sist upon its execution. In the same spirit he wrote to the barons 
reproaching them for not having referred to his tribunal their differ- 
ences with their sovereign, revoking the Charter, and commanding 
them to abandon it. His mandate being unheeded, he proceeded with- 
out delay to fulminate an excommunication against them all, denounc- 
ing them as worse than Saracens, and offering remission of sins to all 
who should attack them. — " Studies in Church History," Henry C. Lea, 
pp. 381, 382. Philadelphia: Henry G. Lea's Sons & Co., 1883. 

Let us remember that the noble mother of European constitutions, 
the English Magna Charta, was visited with the severest anger of Pope 
Innocent III, who understood its importance well enough. He saw 
therein a contempt for the apostolic see, a curtailing of royal preroga- 
tives, and a disgrace to the English nation; he therefore pronounced it 
null and void, and excommunicated the English barons who obtained it. 
— " The Pope and the Council," Janus (Dr. J. J. Ign. von Bollinger) 
(R. C), pp. 22, 23. London: Rivingtons, 1869. 

Man, Origin of. — According to Scripture, man's destiny was to 
" replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over fish, fowl, 
and every living thing" (Gen. 1:28), as God's steward (oikdnomos, 
Titus 1: 7), as fellow laborer with God fsunergds. 1 Cor. 3:9). Hence 
he was placed by God in the garden of Eden (gan he'edhen; LXX, purd- 
deisos tes trophes; Vulgate, paradisus voluptatis, "paradise of de- 
light "). The situation of that garden is carefully described, though the 
proper site remains unknown. Gen. 2: 14, 15. Some, like Driver, con- 
sider this an ideal locality ("Genesis," 57); others take a very wide 
range in fixing upon the true site. 

Every continent has been chosen as the cradle of the race — Africa, 
among others, as the home of the gorilla and the chimpanzee, the sup- 
posed progenitors of humanity. In America, Greenland and the regions 
around the north pole have had their supporters. Certain parts of 
Europe Iiave found favor in some quarters. An imaginary island, 
Lemuria, situated between the African and Australian continents, has 
been accepted by others. All this, however, lies beyond the scope of 
science and beyond the range of Scripture. 

Somewhere to the east of Palestine, and in or near Babylonia, we 
must seek for the cradle of humanity. No trace of primeval man has 
been found, nor has the existence of primeval races been proved. The 
skulls which have been found (Neanderthal, Engis, Lansing) are of a 
high type, even Professor Huxley declaring of the first that " it can 
in no sense be regarded as the intermediate between man and the 
apes; " of the second, that it is " a fair, average skull, which might have 
belonged to a philosopher, or might have contained the thonghtlfiss 
brains of a savage" ("Man's Place in Nature," 156^ 157)-, 



MARK'S GOSPEL, ENDING OF 327 

Of the Lansing skeleton found in Kansas, in 1902, this may at least 
be said — apart from the question as to its antiquity — that the skull 
bears close resemblance to that of the modern Indian. Even the skull 
of the Cro-Magnon man, supposed to belong to the paleolithic age. Sir 
J. W. Dawson considers to have carried a brain of greater size than 
that of the average modern man ("Meeting-Place of Geology and His- 
tory," 54). Primeval man can hardly be compared to the modern savage; 
for the savage is a deteriorated representative of a better type, which 
has slowly degenerated. History does not know of an unaided emer- 
gence from barbarism on the part of any savage tribe; it does know of 
degradation from a better type. — The International Standard Bible 
Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. ''Anthro- 
pology" p. 152. 

Mark's Gospel, Genuineness of Ending of. — The following is a 
brief statement of my reasons for thinking that in this instance critical 
editors have preferred (1) later testimony to earlier, and (2) a less 
probable story to a more probable. The question is one that stands by 
itself, so that the conclusions here stated may be adopted by one who 
has accepted all Westcott and Hort's other decisions. 

1. As to the first point there is little room for controversy. The 
disputed verses are expressly attested by Irengeus in the second century, 
and very probably by Justin Martyr, who incorporates some of their 
language, though, as usual, without express acknowledgment of quo- 
tation. The verses are found in the Syriac version as early as we 
have any knowledge of it; in the Curetonian version as well as in the 
Peshito. Possibly we ought to add to the witnesses for the verses — 
Papias, Celsus, and Hippolytus. On the other hand, the earliest wit- 
ness against the verses is Eusebius in the fourth century; nor is there 
any distinct witness against them who, we can be sure, is independent 
of Eusebius. [p. 190] . . . They are found in every Latin manuscript 
that we know of but one; and they were in the Gospel as read by 
Irenaeus. This alone might give us reason to think that they must have 
been known to Cyprian also; but it happens that one of the things which 
an impugner of the verses has got to explain away is what seems a 
clear quotation of them by a bishop at one of Cyprian's councils. On 
the other hand, if the argument from silence is worth anything, the 
fact deserves attention, that we have no evidence that any writer 
anterior to Eusebius remarked that there was anything abrupt in the 
conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel, or that it gave no testimony to our 
Lord's resurrection, [pp. 190, 191] . . . 

" Supposing that we cannot produce against the verses any wit- 
ness earlier than Eusebius, still Eusebius in the fourth century used 
a purer text than Irenaeus in the second, and, therefore, his testimony 
deserves the more credit." Again, I raise no question as to general 
principles of criticism, nor shall I inquire whether in this case Eusebius 
was not liable to be unduly Influenced by harmonistic considerations; 
but if we accept the fourth-century witness as on the whole the more 
trustworthy, it remains to be considered whether we are to prefer a 
credible witness telling an incredible story to a less trustworthy witness 
telling a highly probable one, 

2. The rejection of the verses absolutely forces on us the alternative 
either that the conclusion which St. Mark originally wrote to his Gospel 
was lost without leaving a trace of its existence, or else that the second 
Gospel never proceeded beyond verse 8. The probability that one or 
other of these two things is true is the exact measure of the probability 
that the Eusebian form of text is correct. 



328 MARK'S GOSPEL, ENDING OF 

We may fairly dismiss as incredible the supposition that the con- 
clusion which St. Mark originally wrote to his Gospel unaccountably dis- 
appeared without leaving a trace behind, and was almost universally 
replaced by a different conclusion. . . . But the total loss of the 
original conclusion could not take place in this way, unless the first 
copy had been kept till it dropped to pieces with age before any one 
made a transcript of it, so that a leaf once lost was lost forever. 

It has been imagined that the Gospel never had a formal con- 
clusion, but this also I find myself unable to believe. Long before 
any Gospel was written, the belief in the resurrection of our Lord had 
become universal among Christians, and this doctrine had become the 
main topic of every Christian preacher. A history of our Lord in 
which this cardinal point was left unmentioned, may be pronounced 
inconceivable, [pp. 191, 192] . . . 

On the other hand, the opinion that the concluding verses, just as 
much as the opening ones, belong to the original framework of the 
Gospel, has no internal difficulties whatever to encounter. The twelve 
verses have such marks of antiquity that Dr. Tregelles, who refused 
to believe them to have been written by St. Mark, still regarded them 
as having " a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second 
Gospel." In fact, we have in the short termination of Codex L a 
specimen of the vague generalities with which a later editor, who 
really knew no more than was contained in our Gospels, might attempt 
to supply a deficiency in the narrative. The twelve verses, on the 
contrary, are clearly the work of one who wrote at so early a date that 
he could believe himself able to add genuine apostolic traditions to 
those already recorded. If he asserts that Jesus " was received up into 
heaven and sat on the right hand of God," he only gives expression 
to what was the universal belief of Christians at as early a period as 
any one believes the second Gospel to have been written. (See Rom. 
8: 34; Eph. 1: 20; Col, 3: 1; 1 Peter 3: 22; Heb. 1: 3; 8: 1; 10: 12; 12: 2.) 
This belief was embodied in the earliest Christian creeds, especially 
in that of the Church of Rome, with which probable tradition connects 
the composition of St. Mark's Gospel. Further, the twelve verses were 
written at a time when the church still believed herself in possession 
of miraculous powers. Later, a stumblingblock was found in the signs 
which it was said (verse 17) should "follow them that believe." The 
heathen objector, with whom Macarius Magnes had to deal, asked if 
any Christians of his day really did believe. Would the strongest be- 
liever of them all test the matter by drinking a cup of poison? The 
objection may have been as old as Porphyry, and may have been one of 
the reasons why Eusebius was willing to part with these verses. We 
may, therefore, ascribe their authorship to one who lived in the very 
first age of the church. And why not to St. Mark? 

Thus, while the Eusebian recension of St. Mark presents intrinsic 
difficulties of the most formidable character, that form of text which 
has the advantage of attestation earlier by a century and a half con- 
tains nothing inconsistent with the date claimed for it. In spite, thea, 
of the eminence of the critics who reject the twelve verses, I cannot help 
looking at them as having been from the first an* integral part of the 
second Gospel, [pp. 192, 193] — ''A Historical Intj'oduction to the Study 
of the Books of the New Testament,"" George Salmon, D. D., pp. 190-193. 
London : John Murray, 1885. 

Marriage, Roman Catholic Definition of. — That Christian mar 
riage (i. e., marriage between baptized persons) is really a sacrament 
of the new law in the strict sense of the word is for all Catholics an 
indubitable truth. According to the Council of Trent this dogma has 



MARRIAGE, NE TEMERE DECREE 329 

always been taught by the church, and is thus defined in Canon 1, Sess. 
XXIV: " If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly 
one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ 
our Lord, but was invented in the church by men, and does not confer 
grace; let him be anathema." — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, 
art. ''Marriage, Sacrament of,'' p. 707. 

Marriage, A Part of the Ne Temeke Decree Conoeening. — I. Only 
those matrimonial engagements are considered to be valid and to beget 
canonical effects which have been made in writing, signed by both the 
parties, and by either the parish priest or the ordinary of the place, 
or at least by two witnesses. . . . 

III. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the 
parish priest, or the ordinary of the place, or a priest delegated by either 
of these, and at least two witnesses, in accordance with the rules laid 
down in the following articles, and with the exceptions mentioned under 
VII and VIII. . . . 

VII. When danger of death is imminent, and where the parish 
priest, or the ordinary of the place, or a priest delegated by either of 
these, cannot be had, in order to provide for the relief of conscience, 
and (should the case require it) for the legitimation of the offspring, 
a marriage may be contracted validly and licitly before any priest and 
two witnesses. 

VIII. Should it happen that in any district the parish priest, or the 
ordinary of the place, or a priest delegated by either of them, before 
whom marriage can be celebrated, is not to be had, and that this con- 
dition of affairs has lasted for a month, marriage may be validly and 
licitly entered upon by the formal declaration of consent made by the 
contracting parties in the presence of two witnesses. . . . 

XI. (i) The above laws are binding on all persons baptized in the 
Catholic Church, and on those who have been converted to it from heresy 
or schism (even when either the latter or the former have fallen away 
afterward from the church), in all cases of betrothal or marriage. 

(ii) The same laws are binding, also, on such Catholics, if they 
contract betrothal or marriage with non-Catholics, baptized or unbap- 
tized, even after a dispensation has been obtained from the impediment 
mixtw religionis [of a dissimilar religion] or disparitatis cultus [of a 
difference of worship] ; unless the Holy See have decreed otherwise 
for some particular place or region. 

(iii) Non-Catholics, whether baptized or unbaptized, who contract 
among themselves, are nowhere bound to observe the Catholic form of 
betrothal or marriage. 

Given at Rome on the second day of August, in the year 1907. 

Vincent, Card. Bishop of Palestrina, Prefect. 

C. DE Lai, Secretary. 
— •' The yew Marriage Legislation,"' on Engagements and Marriage. 
John T. McNicholas, 0. P., S. T. Lr. (R. C), pp. 9-14. Philadelphia: 
American Ecclesiastical Revieiv. 

Marriage, Roman Catholic View of Civll. — A civil marriage is 
only licensed cohabitation. There should be no such legal abomination, 
and the church should be supreme judge of the marriage relation. — 
The Western Watchman (R. C.J, St. Louis, Mo., March 28, 1912. 

Marriage, Roman Catholic View of Protestant or Civil. — 7. Mar- 
riage of all Catholics (both parties Catholics) before a minister or civil 
magistrate will be no marriage at all. 



330 MASORAH, EXPLANATION OP 

8. Marriage of all f alien-away Catholics (who have become Prot- 
estants or infidels) before a minister or civil magistrate will be no 
marriage at all. 

9. Marriage of a Catholic to a non-baptized person is never a real 
marriage unless the church grants a dispensation. Such a marriage 
before a minister or a justice of the peace is no marriage at all for 
two reasons. 

10. Marriage of a Catholic to a Protestant (one never baptized in 
the Catholic Church) before a minister or civil magistrate will be no 
marriage at all, unless the holy see makes a special law for the United 
States. — " The New Marriage Legislation," on Engagements and Mar- 
riage, John T. McNicholas, 0. P., 8. T. Lr. (R. C), p. 63. Philadelphia: 
American Ecclesiastical Review. 

Marriage, Application of Roman Catholic Law of. — Many Prot- 
estants may think the church presumptuous in decreeing their mar- 
riages valid or invalid accordingly as they have or have not complied 
with certain conditions. As the church cannot err, neither can she be 
presumptuous. She alone is judge of the extent of her power. Any 
one validly baptized, either in the church or among heretics, becomes 
thereby a subject of the Roman Catholic Church. The present marriage 
law does not bind any one baptized in heresy or schism, provided they 
have never entered the Catholic Church. — Id., p. 49. 

Masorah, Explanation of. — Although Philo asserts that " the 
Jews never altered a word of what was written by Moses," and Jo- 
sephus maintains that nothing was added to the text of Scripture or 
taken therefrom, such statements cannot be regarded as absolutely 
true, because it is certain that additions and glosses were from time 
to time added to the various books. Moreover the assertions of Philo 
and Josephus are opposed to the facts disclosed by an examination of 
the LXX and of the other versions. There is, however, no ground for 
accusing the Jews of wilfully corrupting the sacred text, an accusation 
constantly preferred against them by the church Fathers, as well as 
by later writers. The care taken by the Jews in post-Christian days 
to preserve intact the books committed to them, led to the execution of 
the work generally designated under the name of the Masorah. [p. 
31] . . . 

Under the name is often included (1) the vowel points and accents, 
and (2) more correctly the critical notes afl&xed to the Hebrew MSS. 
The latter recount the number of times certain rare words or combina- 
tions of words occur, and call attention to divers peculiarities. The 
short Masorah is often divided into various heads: the short notes 
written on the margin of MSS., or of the large Rabbinic Bibles, are 
known as the Masora marginalis, which is an abridgment of the 
Masora magna, which latter was written above or below the text, and 
often in MSS. in all sorts of grotesque forms. The Masora parva is 
written on the sides of the margins and between the columns, and con- 
tains divers notes on words and sentences which occur only once, or on 
various peculiarities in vowel points or consonants, which are noted by 
mnemonical signs. Larger notes are sometimes found at the end of 
the MS., and thus designated the Masora finalis. [p. 32] . . . 

Ben Asher, who lived in the tenth century, and whose family lived 
at Tiberias in the eighth century, is said to have left behind him a 
Hebrew codex, affirmed to have been the main source from whence the 
present Masoretic text is derived. Ben Naphtali somewhat earlier 
wrote also a model codex of the Hebrew Bible, [p. 33] . . . 



MASORAH, EXPLANATION OF 331 

The object of the Masoretic scholars was, as far as possible, to 
preserve the text as they received it. They did not venture to correct 
the text, even in places where its blunders were most distinctly ascer- 
tained, [p. 34] ... 

The labor undergone in the numbering of the letters and the nota- 
tion of the middle letters and middle words in each book subserved no 
useful purpose. It did not preserve the text from corruption. The Mas- 
oretic lists of parallel passages and peculiarities are, on the other hand, 
important. The use of litercd majuscules (as in Gen. 34: 31), minusculcB 
(e. g., Gen. 2:4), suspensw (Judges 18: 30), inverses (Num. 10: 35, 36), 
with many other peculiarities of a similar nature, were designed for 
critical purposes of various kinds, which in some cases have been dis- 
covered, while in other cases their real significance has been hopelessly 
lost. The puerilities about these matters mentioned by Buxtorf in 
his " Tiberias," are in many cases mere " conceits " of a later age. The 
puncta extraordinaria, which are of far older date than the Masoretic 
period, have been in some cases explained as simple signs of correction 
on the part of the scribes. There is much to be said in favor of this 
view. For similar points occur in Samaritan MSS, with that significa- 
tion, and some of the words so pointed in Hebrew MSS. are omitted in 
the ancient versions. But although some such use was subserved by 
those dots, the explanation cannot yet be absolutely accepted, [pp. 37, 
38] . . . 

The order of the various books seems to have been finally settled 
by the Masoretes. The Hebrew Bible is divided into three parts: (1) 
The Torah, "Law" or Pentateuch; (2) The Prophets, divided into two, 
(a) the former, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings; (6) the later, Isaiah, 
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, with the twelve Minor Prophets; (3) The Kethubim, 
or the " Writings," generally termed the Hagiographa, viz., Psalms, 
Proverbs, Job, the five Megilloth or Rolls (i. e., Canticles, Ruth, Lamenta- 
tions, Ecclesiastes, and Esther), Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. 

The order of the books in the English Bible is that of the Latin 
Vulgate, with the Apocryphal books excluded. The Masorah reckons 
the books as twenty-four, the two books of Samuel, Kings, and Chron- 
icles being counted as single books; the twelve Minor Prophets are 
reckoned as one book, and Ezra and Nehemiah are also regarded as 
forming together one book. The English Bible regards the books as 
thirty-nine. Josephus and the Alexandrine writers reckon only twenty- 
two, Ruth with Judges being counted as one, and Lamentations being 
included in Jeremiah. 

The arrangement in the Talmud (Baha Bathra, 14b^ is: Law; 
Prophets, i. e., Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isa- 
iah, and the Twelve; Writings, i. e., Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Kohe- 
leth. Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chron- 
icles. But the latter order is of very doubtful authority. (See Bloch, 
"Studien; " Wright, " Koheleth," Excurs. i.) 

The size of the respective books, as ascertained by the pages 
actually occupied by each, was evidently the principle which determined 
the order in which the books of the Prophets were placed according to 
this arrangement, [pp. 38, 39] — "An Introduction to the Old Testa- 
ment," Rev. Charles H. H. Wright, D. D., Ph. D., pp. 31-39. New York: 
Thomas Whittaker. 

Masorah, The Small and the Final. — Masorah: The system of crit- 
ical notes on the external form of the Biblidal text. This system of notes 
represents the literary labors of innumerable scholars, of which the 



332 MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. LANGUAGE OF 

beginning falls probably in pre-Maccabean times and the end reaches to 
tae year 1425. 

The name " Masorah " occurs in many forms, the etymology, pro- 
nunciation, and genetic connection of which are much-mooted points. 
The term is taken from Ezekiel 20 : 37, and means originally " fetter." 
The fixation of the text was correctly considered to be in the nature of a 
fetter upon its exposition. . . . The Small Masorah consists of brief 
notes with reference to marginal readings, to statistics showing the 
number of times a particular form is found in Scripture, to full and 
defective spelling, and to abnormally written letters. The Large 
Masorah is more copious in its notes. The Final Masorah comprises 
all the longer rubrics for which space could not be found in the margin 
of the text, and is arranged alphabetically in the form of a concordance. 
The quantity of notes the marginal Masorah contains is conditioned by 
the amount of vacant space on each page. In the manuscripts it varies 
also with the rate at which the copyist was paid and the fanciful shape 
he gave to his gloss. 

The question as to which of the above forms is the oldest cannot 
be decided from the data now accessible. On the one hand, it is known 
that marginal notes were used in the beginning of the second century 
of the common era; on the other, there is every reason to assume the 
existence of Masoretic baraitas which could not have been much later. 
The Small Masorah is in any case not an abbreviation of the Large 
Masorah. Like the latter, it occurs also arranged in alphabetical order. 
— The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, art. " Masorah," p. 365. 

Matthevs^'s Gospel, Original Language of. — There is not the least 
difficulty in believing that Matthew might have written a Gospel in 
Greek, even on the supposition that he intended it only for the use of 
the Christians in Palestine; and the first Gospel contains internal 
evidence that it was meant to have a wider circulation. On the other 
hand, the proof I have given from Josephus of the literary use of the 
Aramaic language in his time makes it equally easy to accept evidence 
of the existence of an Apostolic Hebrew Gospel, if only decisive evi- 
dence for its existence were forthcoming. But it does not appear that 
any of the witnesses had themselves seen such a Gospel, and there is 
no evidence of the existence of any Greek text but the one which was 
universally regarded as authoritative, [p. 223] . . . 

The statement that it had been written in Hebrew rests on a private 
tradition, for all we know first made public by Papias himself; and 
Papias has been generally condemned as overcredulous with respect to 
some of the traditions which he accepted. If the Greek Gospel had been, 
as some suppose, only based on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, but was 
actually the work of one of the second generation, I do not know why 
the name of the real author should have been suppressed; for the 
second and third Gospels bear the names of those who were supposed 
to be their real authors, and not those of the apostles on whose author- 
ity they were believed to rest. So that, if Matthew did not write the 
first Gospel, I do not think the name of Matthew would have been neces- 
sary to gain it acceptance in the church, [pp. 224, 225] — -"A Historical 
Introduction to the Study of the Books of the Neio Testament,'' George 
Salmon, D. D., pp. 223-225. London: John Murray, 1885. 

Messiah, Prophecies Fulfilled in. — To Bruise the Head of the 
Serpent. — The first intimation we have of a Messiah was in the promise 
that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent. 
Gen. 3: 11. In the New Testament it is said, "God sent forth his Son, 



MESSIAH, PROPHECIES CONCERNING 333 

made of a woman." Gal. 4: 4. And again: He became a partaker of 
flesh and blood, that " through death he might destroy him that had the 
power of death, that is, the devil." Heb. 2: 14. 

To Be of the Seed of Abraham. — The next general intimation was 
given to Abraham, and his family was predicted. " And in thy seed 
shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Gen. 22: 18. "Now, to 
Abraham," says Paul, " and his seed, were the promises made. He 
saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one. And to thy seed. 
which is Christ." Gal. 3: 16. "For verily he took not on him the 
nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham." Heb. 2: 16. 

Of the Tribe of Judah. — He was to be of the tribe of Judah. " The 
scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his 
feet, until Shiloh come: and unto him shall the gathering of the people 
be." Gen. 49:10. "For it is evident," says Paul, "that our Lord 
sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning 
priesthood." Heb. 7: 14. 

Of the House of David. — He was to be of the house of David. 
"And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for 
am ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall 
be glorious." Isa. 11: 10. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that 
I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and 
prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice; and this is his name 
whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Jer. 
23: 5, 6. Paul says, "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which 
was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Rom. 1: 3. 

Place of Birth Designated. — The place of his birth was designated. 
" But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the 
thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is 
to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from 
everlasting." Micah 5:2. " Now," says Matthew, " when Jesus was 
born in Bethlehem of Judea." Matt. 2: 1. 

The Time of Birth. — The time was designated. It was not only to 
be before the scepter departed from Judah, but while the second temple 
was standing. " And I will shake all nations," says God by Haggai, 
"and the Desire of all nations shall come: and the glory of this latter 
house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts." 
Haggai 2: 7, 9. Daniel also said, " Seventy weeks are determined upon 
thy people and upon thy holy city, to flnish the transgression, and to 
make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to 
bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and 
prophecy, and to anoint the most holy." Dan. 9: 24. 

Accordingly we flnd, not only from Jewish writers, but from the 
most explicit passages in Tacitus and Suetonius, that there was a gen- 
eral expectation that an extraordinary person would arise in Judea 
about that time. So strong was this expectation among the Jews as to 
encourage numerous false Christs to appear, and to enable them to 
gain followers; and so certain were they that the temple could not be 
destroyed before the coming of the Messiah, that they refused all terms 
from Titus, and fought with desperation till the last. 

Elias to Gome First. — He was to be preceded by a remarkable per- 
son resembling Elijah. " Behold, I will send my messenger, and he 
shall prepare the way before me." Mai. 3: 1. "Behold, I will send you 
Elijah the propnet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of 
the Lord." Mai. 4:5. " The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness. 
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway 
for our God." Isa. 40:3. "In those days came John the Baptist, 



334 MESSIAH, PROPHECIES CONCERNING 

preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye; for the 
kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. 3: 1, 2. 

Was to Work Miracles. — He was to work miracles. " Then the 
eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be 
unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue 
of the dumb sing." Isa. 35: 5, 6. These are precisely the miracles 
recorded as wrought by Christ in instances too numerous to mention. 

His Public Entry into Jerusalem. — He was to make a public entry 
into Jerusale,m, riding upon a colt the foal of an ass. " Rejoice greatly, 
O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King 
cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding 
upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." Zech. 9: 9. An 
account of the exact fulfilment of this prophecy will be found in the 
twenty-first chapter of Matthew. 

To Be Rejected 'by the Jews. — He was to be rejected of his own 
countrymen. "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of 
stumbling and for a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel." Isa. 
8: 14. "He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, 
there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and re- 
jected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we 
hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed 
him not." Isa. 53: 2, 3. "He came unto his own," says John, "and 
his own received him not." John 1: 11. And again: "Though he had 
done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 
that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, 
Lord, who hath believed our report? " — quoting the first verse of the 
fifty-third of Isaiah, and thus claiming it as spoken of the Messiah. 
And after quoting another prophecy, the apostle says, " These things 
said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." John 12: 37, 
38, 41. 

To Be Scourged and Mocked. — He was to be scourged, mocked, and 
spit upon. " I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them 
that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face fro,m shame and spitting." 
Isa. 50: 6. "And when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be 
crucified." Matt. 27 : 26. " Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted 
him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands." Matt. 
26: 67. 

His Hands and Feet to Be Pierced. — 'His hands and his feet were 
to be pierced. "The assembly of the wicked have inclosed me; they 
pierced my hands and my feet." Ps. 22: 16. This is remarkable be- 
cause the punishment of crucifixion was not known among the Jews. 

To Be Numbered with Transgressors. — He was to be numbered 
with the transgressors. "And he was numbered with the transgressors; 
and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the trans- 
gressors." Isa. 53: 12. 

To Be Reviled on the Cross. — He was to be mocked and reviled on 
the cross. " All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out 
the lip, they shake the head, saying. He trusted on the Lord that he 
would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him." 
Ps. 22: 7, 8. "Likewise also the chief priests, mocking him, with the 
scribes and elders, said. He saved others; himself he cannot save. . . . 
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for 
he said, I am the Son God." Matt. 27: 41-43. 

To Have Gall and Vinegar to Drink. — ^He was to have gall and 
vinegar to drink. "They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my 
thirst, they gave me vinegar to drink." Ps. 69: 21. "And when they 
were come umto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, A place of a 



MESSIAH, PROPHECIES CONCERNING 335 

skull, they gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall." Matt. 27: 
33, 34. 

His Garments to Be Parted. — His garments were to be parted, and 
upon his vesture lots were to be cast. " They part my garments among 
them, and cast lots upon my vesture." Ps. 22: 18. "Then the soldiers, 
when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, 
to every soldier a part; and also his coat; now the coat was without 
seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among them- 
selves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that 
the Scripture might be fulfilled." John 19: 23, 24. 

His Death to Be Violent. — He was to be cut off by a violent death. 
" For he was cut out of the land of the living." Isa. 53: 8. "And after 
threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself." 
Dan. 9: 26. 

Was to Be Pierced. — He was to be pierced. " And I will pour upon 
the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit 
of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they 
have pierced." Zech. 12: 10. "But one of the soldiers with a spear 
pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." 
John 19: 34. 

To Make His Grave with the Rich. — He was to make his grave with 
the rich. " And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich 
in his death." Isa. 53 : 9. " When the even was come, there came a 
rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' 
disciple. He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus, and laid it 
in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock." Matt. 
27: 57, 58, 60. 

Was Not to See Corruption. — He was not to see corruption. " For 
thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy 
One to see corruption." Ps. 16: 10. "Men and brethren," says Peter, 
after citing this passage, " let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch 
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us 
unto this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had 
sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to 
the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, he, seeing this 
before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left 
in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." Acts 2: 29-31. 

And yet there are some who say that these prophecies are no proph- 
ecies, and were never claimed to be. But I think it evident that Peter 
did not belong, as an interpreter of prophecy, to the schools of German 
neology. — ''Evidences of Christianity,'' Mark Hopkins, D. D., pp. 312- 
318. Boston: T. R. Marvin & Son, 1874. 

Miracles, Definition or. — A miracle is an effect or event contrary 
to the established constitution or course of things, or a sensible suspen- 
sion or controlment of, or deviation from, the known laws of nature, 
wrought either by the immediate act, or by the assistance, or by the 
permission of God, and accompanied with a previous notice or decla- 
ration that it is performed according to the purpose and by the power 
of God, for the proof or evidence of some particular doctrine, or in 
attestation of the authority or divine mission of some particular 
person, [pp. 204, 205] . . . 

The possibility of miracles, such as we have described them to be, 
is not contrary to reason, and consequently their credibility is capable 
of a rational proof; and though we cannot give a mechanical account 
of the manner how they are done, because they are done by the unusual 
interposition of an invisible agent, superior both in wisdom and 



336 MIRACLES 

power to ourselves, we must not therefore deny the fact which our 
own senses testify to be done. [p. 206] — "An Introduction to the 
Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,'' Thomas Hart- 
ivell Home, B. D., Vol. I, pp. 204-206. London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

Miracles, Description or. — A miracle is an event making known to 
the senses the presence of a personal power above the physical and 
human plane, working toward a moral end. — " Why Is Christianity 
True?'' E. Y. Mullins, D. D., LL. D., p. 170. Philadelphia: American 
Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. 

Miracles, A Different Manifestation of Power. — The miracle is 
not a greater manifestation of God's power than those ordinary and 
ever-repeated processes; but it is a different manifestation. — "Notes 
on th& Miracles of Our Lord," Richard Chenevix Trench, M. A., p. 17. 
New York: D. Appleton <& Co., 1852. 

Miracles, Not Against Nature. — While the miracle is not thus 
nature, so neither is it against nature. That language, however com- 
monly in use, is yet wholly unsatisfactory, which speaks of these won- 
derful works of God as violations of a natural law. Beyond nature, 
beyond and above the nature which we know, they are, but not con- 
trary to it. — Id., p. 20. 

Miracles, An Unwarranted Distinction Concerning. — The distinc- 
tion, indeed, which is sometimes made, that in the miracle God is imme- 
diately working, and in other events is leaving it to the laws which 
he has established, to work, cannot at all be admitted; for it has its 
root in a dead mechanical view of the universe which lies altogether 
remote from the truth. The clock maker makes his clock and leaves it; 
the shipbuilder builds and launches his ship, and others navigate it; 
but the world is no curious piece of mechanism which its Maker makes 
and then dismisses from his hands, only from time to time reviewing 
and repairing it; but as our Lord says, " My Father worketh hitherto, 
and I work " (John 5: 17) ; he " upholdeth all things by the word of his 
power" (Heb. 1:3). And to speak of "laws of God," "laws of 
nature," may become to us a language altogether deceptive, and hid- 
ing the deeper reality from our eyes. Laws of God exist only for us. 
It is a will of God for himself. That will indeed, being the will of 
highest wisdom and love, excludes all wilfulness — is a will upon which 
we can securely count; from the past expressions of it we can presume 
its future, and so we rightfully call it a law. But still from moment 
to moment it is a will; each law, as we term it, of nature is only that 
which we have learned concerning this will in that particular region 
of its activity. To say, then, that there is more of the will of God in 
a miracle than in any other work of his, is insufficient. Such an 
affirmation grows out of that lifeless scheme of the world, of which 
we should ever be seeking to rid ourselves, but which such a theory 
will only, help to confirm and to uphold. — Id., pp. 16, 17. 

Miracles, Six Marks of. — The miracles related in the Bible are 
accompanied by such evidences as it will be found difficult to adduce 
in support of any other historic fact, and such as cannot be brought to 
substantiate any pretended fact whatever. 

Since . . . the proper effect of a miracle is clearly to mark 
the divine interposition, it must therefore have characters proper to 
indicate such interposition; and these criteria are six in number: 

1. It is required, then, in the first place, that a fact or event, which 



MIRACLES 337 

is stated to be miraculous, should have an important end, worthy of its 
author. 

2. It must be instantaneously and publicly performed. 

3. It must be sensible and easy to be observed: in other words, the 
fact or event must be such that the senses of mankind can clearly and 
fully judge of it, 

4. It must be independent of second causes. 

5. Not only public monuments must be kept up, but some outward 
actions must be constantly performed in memory of the fact thus 
publicly wrought. 

6. And such monuments must be set up, and such actions and 
observances be instituted, at the very time when those events took 
place, and afterward be continued without interruption. — " An Intro- 
duction to t1\e Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,'' 
Thomas Hartwell Home, B. D., Vol. I, p. 216. London: T. Gadell, 1839. 

Miracles, Place of, in the Government of God. — If we apply the 
notion of a law to God at all, it is plain that miraculous interpositions 
on fitting occasions may be as much a regular, fixed, and established 
rule of his government, as the working ordinarily by what are called 
natural laws. — " The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scrip- 
ture Records,'' George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 43. New York: John B. 
Alden, 1883. 

Miracles, The Proper Phenomena of Christ's Person. — He 
[Christ] himself was the great moral miracle. Miracles are the proper 
" phenomena of his person," They are the laws of his nature. " It is 
not that the miracles prove the doctrine, or that the doctrine makes 
credible the miracle," says Canon Gore. " It is rather that as parts 
of one whole they cohere as soul and body." — " Why Is Christianity 
True?" E. Y. Mullins, D. D., LL. D., p. 182. Philadelphia: American 
Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. 

Miracles, The Manifestation of a Supernatural Person. — What 
is common to all four evangelists, and what is in their mind essential, 
is the idea, not that the miraculous history proves the person to be 
supernatural, but that the history was miraculous because it articu- 
lated and manifested the supernatural person. The Gospels may 
indeed be described as the interpretation of this person in the terms 
of history; and so regarded, the Jesus of Mark is as miraculous as the 
Jesus of John. There is more than art, there is real philosophy, in 
the evangelical standpoint and method; for the supernatural per- 
sonality is more able to make the supernatural in nature and history 
real and credible than the miraculous in nature and history is able 
to make the supernatural personality living and intelligible, — " The 
Philosophy of the Christian Religion," Andrew Martin Fairhairn, M. A., 
D. D., LL. D., pp. 326, 327. New York: George H. Doran Company, 
copyright 1902. 

Miracles, Defended as the Result of Belief in Christ. — We, for 
our part, do not hesitate to defend the Christian belief in miracles, 
as a consequence of belief in the holy God-man. If the Lord was 
really the One, as whom we have learnt to know him, then his acts 
may be miracles for us, for Him they were only the highest nature. 
If even the discoveries and occupations of the more cultivated man are 
incomprehensible for the wilder tribes; if even the man of rational 
and moral culture is able, mechanically and physically, to bring 
under the material world, how much less for Him in whom the supreme 
22 



338 MIRACLES 

Godhead was united with a pure humanity could the material world 
prove an insuperable barrier, where he will work dynamically! 

The human spirit is by nature higher than matter; how much 
more the divine! The evidence against the possibility of such miracles, 
derived from daily experience, signifies nothing, so long as the right 
of the experience of the present day to contradict in a lofty tone that 
jvhich ages ago was observed by the experience alike of eye-witnesses 
and ear-witnesses, is not better proved than hitherto. And if it is 
demanded of us that we should prove the possibility of such rare phe- 
nomena, this possibility is sufficiently guaranteed for our faith — for 
our faith, mind — by the Christian idea of an almighty, wise, and lov- 
ing Architect of all things, existing not only in, but above, the world. 
For this God the laws of nature are no chains with which he has 
bound himself, but threads which his hand, so often as he thinks 
necessary, can alternately contract or loosen. — " The Person and 
Work of the Redeemer" J. J. Van Oosterzee, D. D., pp. 242, 243. Lon- 
don: Hodder and ^toughton, 1886. 

Miracles, A Part of Revelation. — This association of revelation 
with miracle is of the highest importance. The miracles are more than 
supernatural acts attesting a revelation; they are part of the revela- 
tion. They yield a light of their own. And in the case of our Lord 
they are linked with revelations of moral and spiritual truth of the 
sublimest character, miracle rising into discourse, and discourse illumi- 
nated by miracle. To separate between the miracles and teachings 
of Christ is impossible. We cannot retain the words and reject the 
deeds. — " On This Rock,'" H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., F. R. A. 8., 
F. R. G. 8., p. 62. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. 

Miracles, A Witness to the Divine Origin of Christianity. — 
The following statement is true beyond controversy: Man cannot, in 
the present constitution of his mind, believe that religion has a divine 
origin unless it be accompanied with miracles. The necessary infer- 
ence of the mind is, that if an Infinite Being acts, his acts will be 
superhuman in their character; because the effect, reason dictates, will 
be characterized by the nature of its cause. Man has the same reason 
to expect that God will perform acts above human power and knowl- 
edge, that he has to suppose the inferior orders of animals will, in 
their actions, sink below the power and wisdom which characterizes 
human nature. For as it is natural for man to perform acts superior 
to the power and knowledge of the animals beneath him, so reason 
affirms that it is natural for God to develop his power by means and 
in ways above the skill and ability of mortals. Hence, if God manifest 
himself at all, — unless, in accommodation to the capacities of men, 
he should constrain his manifestations within the compass of human 
ability, — every act of God's immediate power would, to human ca- 
pacity, be a miracle. But if God were to constrain all his acts within 
the limits of human means and agencies, it would be impossible for 
man to discriminate between the acts of the Godhead and the acts of 
the manhood. And man, if he considered acts of a divine origin which 
were plainly within the compass of human ability, would violate his 
own reason.* 

Suppose, for illustration, that God desired to reveal a religion to 
men, and wished them to recognize his character and his benevolence 
in giving that revelation. Suppose, further, that God should give such 
a revelation, and that every appearance and every act connected with 
its introduction, was characterized by nothing superior to human 
power. Could any rational mind on earth believe that such a system 



MIRACLES 339 

of religion came from God? Impossible! A man could as easily be 
made to believe that his own child, who possessed his own lineaments 
and his own nature, belonged to some other world and some other 
order of the creation. It would not be possible for God to convince 
men that a religion was from heaven, unless it was accompanied with 
the marks of divine power. — " Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation,'' 
James B. Walker, D. D., pp. 47, 48. New York: Chautauqua Press, 1887. 

Miracles, Benefits of. — The miracles of Jesus, then, are amply 
supported by evidence. They are an offense only to those who place 
things above persons, the mechanical order of nature above the moral 
order. Miracles as Jesus employed them are a bond of unity at every 
point, not a doctrine of anarchy. The unity of the Gospel records is 
fatally marred without them. They do not violate but restore the dis- 
membered moral kingdom, which had been broken up by sin. The 
doctrines of Fatherhood and grace are far from complete without them. 
They vindicate the conception of the universe as a family, in which 
persons are bound together by love, over against the conception that 
the universe is merely a cosmos bound together by physical force. 
They suggest to the intellect the clew to the final unity of nature and 
spirit in the Supreme Person. Miracles, then, bring rest to the mind 
seeking for ultimate truth by suggesting the bond which secures a 
moral, theological, and philosophical unity in all these ways. They will 
abide as a part of the New Testament records and of the convictions of 
believers. — " Why Is Christianity True? " E. Y. Mullins, D. D., LL. D., 
pp. 186, 187. Phdladelphia : Anierican Baptist Publication Society, copy- 
right 1905. 

' Miracles, Christ's Not Peeformed for His Own Benefit. — In his 
whole life, then, and in all his actions Jesus exercised his power always 
and only for man. The mystery of the life which so appealed to the 
heart and imagination of his people lies here — with the power to save 
he yet wills to lose himself. The vision of God which he creates 
brings to man beatitude; the vision of sin which he suffers brings to 
himself sorrow. The strength of his will is seen, not in any immunity 
from calamity which he commands, but in the sacrifice he makes. And 
this touches a specific and distinctive quality of the supernatural ele- 
ment in the Gospels. There is nothing like it in the mythology of the 
miraculous. The mythical miracle is primarily personal; for what 
could be the use of a supernatural power which did not serve its pos- 
sessor in his own hour of need? . . . But Jesus from first to last, 
in all his acts and in all his doings, is supernatural on man's behalf, 
and not on his own. He was a moral wonder rather than a physical 
marvel. — " The Philosophy of the Christian Religion," Andrew Martin 
Fairlairn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., pp. 342, 343. New York: George H. 
Doran Company, copyright 1902. 

Miracles, Relation of, to Doctrines. — The miracles have been 
spoken of as though they borrowed nothing from the truths which 
they confirmed, but those truths everything from them; when indeed the 
true relation is one of mutual interdependence, the miracles proving 
the doctrines, and the doctrines approving the miracles, and both held 
together for us in a blessed unity, in the person of Him who spake the 
words and did the works, and through the impress of highest holiness 
and of absolute truth and goodness, which that person leaves stamped 
on our souls; so that it may be more truly said that we believe the 
miracles for Christ's sake, than Christ for the miracles' sake. Neither 
when we thus affirm that the miracles prove the doctrine, and the doc- 



340 MIRACLES 

trine the miracles, are we arguing in a circle; rather we are re- 
ceiving the sum total of the impression which this divine revela- 
tion is intended to make on us, instead of taking an impression 
only partial and one-sided, — " Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord," 
Richard Ghenevix Trench, M. A., p. 81. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 
1852. 

Miracles, Impossible to Atheism Only. — Is there then anything 
in the nature of things to make miracles impossible? Not unless things 
have an independent existence, and work by their own power. If 
they are in themselves naught, if God called them out of nothing, and 
but for his sustaining power they* would momentarily fall back into 
nothing; if it is not they that work, but he who works in them and 
through them; if growth, and change, and motion, and assimilation, 
and decay, are his dealings with matter, as sanctification, and enlighten- 
ment, and inward comfort, and the gift of the clear vision of him, are 
his dealings with ourselves; if the Great and First Cause never deserts 
even for a moment the second causes, but he who " upholdeth all things 
by the word of his power," and is " above all and through all," is also 
(as Hooker says) "the Worker of all in all," then certainly things in 
themselves cannot oppose any impediment to miracles, or do aught 
but obsequiously follow the divine fiat, be it what it may." 

The whole difficulty with regard to miracles has its roots in a 
materialistic atheism, which believes things to have a force in and of 
themselves; which regards them as self-sustaining, if not even as 
self-caused; which deems them to possess mysterious powers of their 
own, uncontrollable by the divine will; which sees in the connec- 
tion of physical cause and effect, not a sequence, not a law, but- a 
necessity; which, either positing a divine First Cause to bring things 
into existence, then (like Anaxagoras) makes no further use of him; 
or does not care to posit any such First Cause at all, but is content to 
refer all things to a " course of nature," which it considers eternal and 
unalterable, and on which it lavishes all the epithets that believers 
regard as appropriate to God, and God only. It is the peculiarity of 
atheism at the present day that it uses a religious nomenclature — it 
is no longer dry, and hard, and cold, all matter of fact and common 
sense, as was the case in the last century; on the contrary, it has 
become warm in expression, poetic, eloquent, glowing, sensuous, imagi- 
native. The " course of nature," which it has set up in the place of God, 
is in a certain sense deified, — no language is too exalted to be applied 
to it, no admiration too great to be excited by it — it is "glorious," 
and " marvelous," and " superhuman," and " heavenly," and " spirit- 
ual," and " divine " — only it is " It," not " He," a fact or set of facts, 
and not a Person; and so it can really call forth no love, no gratitude, 
no reverence, no personal feeling of any kind; it can claim no willing 
obedience; it can inspire no wholesome awe; it is a dead idol, after all, 
and its worship is but the old nature worship, — man returning in his 
dotage to the follies which beguiled his childhood, losing the Creator 
in the creature, the Workman in the work of his hands. 

It cannot therefore be held on any grounds but such as involve a 
real, though covert atheism, that miracles are impossible, or that a 
narrative of which supernatural occurrences form an essential part, is 
therefore devoid of a historical character. Miracles are to be viewed as 
in fact a part of the divine economy, — a part as essential as any other, 
though coming into play less frequently. — " The Historical Evidences 
of the Truth of the Scripture Records,'" George Rawlinson, M. A., pp, 
44, 45. New York: John B. Alden, 1883. 



MIRACLES 341 

Miracles, Elijah's and Blisha's. — 

Elijah's Eiffht Miracles (1 and 2 Kingrs) 

1. Shutting heaven (17: 1). 5. Rain (18: 45). 

2. Oil multiplied (17: 14). 6. Fire on 50 (2 Kings 1: 10). 

3. Widow's son raised (17: 22, 23). 7. Fire on 50 (2 Kings 1: 12). 

4. Fire from heaven (18: 38). 8. Jordan (2 Kings 2:8), 

Elisha's Sixteen Miracles (2 King's) 

1. Jordan divided (2: 14.) 9. Bread multiplied (4: 43). 

2. Waters healed (2: 21). 10. Naaman healed (5: 10). 

3. Bears from wood (2: 24). 11. Gehazi smitten (5: 27). 

4. Water for kings (3: 20). 12. Iron to swim (6: 6). 

5. Oil for widow (4:1-6). 13. Sight to blind (6: 17). 

6. Gift of son (4: 16, 17). 14. Smiting blindness (6: 18). 

7. Raising from dead (4: 35). 15. Restoring sight (6: 20). 

8. Healing of pottage (4: 41). 16. One after death (13: 21). 

— ''The Companion Bible" Part II, ''Joshua to Job,'' p. 491. London: 
Oxford University Press. 

Miracles, List of. — Of the fifty-seven events of the gospel history 
which we have called miraculous, five are events connected with the 
Saviour's birth and infancy. They are: 

1. Angel appears to Zacharias. Luke 1. 

2. Angel appears to Mary. Luke 1. 

3. Loosening of Zacharias's tongue, etc. Luke 1. 

4. Angel appears to Joseph. Matthew 1. 

5. Angel app-ears to shepherds. Luke 2. 

Of the remaining fifty-two, there are two which were performed 
without any direct volition of the Saviour, that is, by God himself. They 
are: 

1. The baptism of Christ by the Holy Spirit at the Jordan. Matt. 
3: 16. 

2. The miracles at the crucifixion — -rending of the veil of the 
temple, opening of graves, etc. Matthew 27, 28. 

The fifty we now have left, are capable of still further subdivision. 
Twelve of these fifty were events which were miraculous in their nature, 
actings of the Father upon the Son, or appearances of the Son or of 
angels after his resurrection, but were not wrought, like healings, upon 
others. They are: 

1. The transfiguration of Christ. Matthew 17. 

2. The resurrection of Christ. Matthew 28. 

3. The angels at the Sepulcher. Matthew 28. 

4. Jesus appears to the women. Matthew 28. 

5. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene. Mark 16. 

6. Jesus appears to Peter. Luke 24. 

7. Jesus appears to two disciples. Luke 24. 

8. Jesus appears to ten disciples (Thomas being absent). John 20. 

9. Jesus appears to eleven disciples. John 20. 

10. Jesus appears on mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28. 

11. Jesus appears to seven disciples in Galilee. John 21. 

12. Ascension. Mark 16. 

We have left now thirty-eight events which may be called miracles 
of our Lord. About two of them there may be more or less dispute; 
viz., (1) The falling backward of the band of men who came to arrest 
Jesus in the garden (John 18: 4) ; and (2) the fire of coals, etc., noticed 
by the disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, when Jesus appears 
to seven of them at that place. (See John 21.) As to the remaining 



342 MIRACLES 

thirty-six we think there is no dispute. They may be found classified 
in the helps in the Teachers' Bible. 

The following occurred at Capernaum: 

1. Healing of demoniac. Mark 1. 

2. Healing of Peter's mother-in-law and many others. Matthew 8. 

3. Healing of paralytic. Matthew 9. 

4. Healing of centurion's servant. Matthew 8. 

5. Raising of Jairus's daughter. Matthew 9. 

6. Healing of two blind men. Matthew 9. 

7. Healing of the dumb spirit. Matthew 9. 

8. Stater in the fish's mouth. Matthew 17. 

9. Healing of woman with bloody issue. Matthew 9. 
In Galilee (place not certain) occurred: 

1. Healing of a leper. Matthew 8. 

2. Healing of withered hand. Matthew 12. 

3. Healing of demoniac. Matthew 12. 

On, or in the immediate vicinity of, the Sea of Galilee, occurred: 

1. Miraculous draught of fishes. Luke 5. 

2. Stilling of tempest. Matthew 8. 

3. Feeding of five thousand. Matthew 14. 

4. Walking on water. Matthew 14. 

5. Draught of fishes. John 21. 

In Jerusalem, or near it, occurred: 

1. Healing of man at pool of Bethesda. John 5. 

2. Healing of a blind man. John 9 and 10. 

3. Withering of fig tree. Matthew 21. 

4. Healing of Malchus's ear (Gethsemane). Luke 22. 
In the Decapolis occurred: 

1. Healing of deaf and dumb (and many). Mark 7. 

2. Feeding of four thousand. Matthew 15. 

— " The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth," Samuel J. Andrews, pp. 
641-643. New York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 1891. 

Miracles, Lack of, in MoHAMMEa^ANiSM. — The mission of the 
ancient prophets, of Moses and of Jesus, had been confirmed by many 
splendid prodigies; and Mahomet was repeatedly urged, by the inhab- 
itants of Mecca and Medina, to produce a similar evidence of his divine 
legation; to call down from heaven the angel or the volume of his 
revelation, to create a garden in the desert, or to kindle a confiagra- 
tion in the unbelieving city. As often as he is pressed by the demands 
of the Koreish, he involves himself in the obscure boast of vision and 
prophecy, appeals to the iiiternal proofs of his doctrine, and shields 
himself behind the providence of God, who refuses those signs and 
wonders that would depreciate the merit of faith, and aggravate the 
guilt of infidelity. But the modest or angry tone of his apologies 
betrays his weakness and vexation; and these passages of scandal 
established, beyond suspicion, the integrity of the Koran. The votaries 
of Mahomet are more assured than himself of his miraculous gifts; 
and their confidence and credulity increase as they are farther re- 
moved from the time and place of his spiritual exploits. — " The His- 
tory of the Decline and Fall of the Rodman Empire,'* Edward Gi'bl)on, 
chap. 50, par. 16 (Vol. V, pp. Ill, 112). New York: Harper d Brothers. 

Miracles, Why More Abe Not Seen Now. — What has become of 
the miracles and supernatural gifts of the gospel era? These were asso- 
ciated historically with the planting of Christianity. By such tokens 
Christ authenticated his mission, giving the like signs to his apostles, 
to be the authentication of theirs. What, then, it is peremptorily re- 



MIHACLES 343 

quired of us to answer, has become of these miracles, these tongues, 
gifts of healing, prophecies? what, also, of the dreams, presentiments, 
visits of angels? what of judgments falling visibly on the head of 
daring and sacrilegious crimes? what of possessions, magic, gorcery, 
necromancy? If these once were facts, why should they not be now? 
If they are incredible now, when were they less so? Does a fact become 
rational and possible by being carried back into other centuries of 
time? Is it given us to see that Christianity throws itself out boldly 
on its facts, in these matters, or does it come in the shy and cautious 
manner some appear to suppose, asserting a few miracles and half- 
mythologic marvels that occurred in the romantic ages of history, 
where no investigation can reach them; adding, to escape all demand 
of such now, in terms of present evidence, that they are discontinued, 
because the canon is closed and there is no longer any use for them? 

Such a disposal of the question, it must be seen, wears a suspicious 
look. If miracles are inherently incredible, which is the impression 
at the root of our modern unbelief, evidently nothing is gained by 
thrusting them back into remote ages of time. If, on the other hand, 
they are inherently credible, why treat them as if they were not? rais- 
ing ingenious and forced hypotheses to account for their nonoccur- 
rence? [pp. 446, 447] . . . 

There may certainly be reasons for such miracles and gifts of the 
Spirit, apart from any authentication of new books of Scripture. In- 
deed, they might possibly be wanted even the more, to break up the 
monotony likely to follow, when revelations have ceased, and the 
word of Scripture is forever closed up; wanted also possibly to lift 
the church out of the abysses of a mere second-hand religion, keeping 
it alive and open to the realities of God's immediate visitation. 

And yet, for these and such like reasons, it is very commonly 
assumed, and has been since the days of Chrysostom, that miracles and 
all similar externalities of divine power have iDeen discontinued, 
[p. 448] . . . 

The Christian world has been gravitating, visibly, more and more, 
toward this vanishing point of faith, for whole centuries, and especially 
since the modern era of science began to shape the thoughts of men 
by only scientific methods. Religion has fallen into the domain of the 
mere understanding, and so it has become a kind of wisdom not to be- 
lieve much, therefore to expect as little. 

Now it is this descent to mere rationality that makes an occasion 
for the signs and wonders of the Spirit. The unbelieving and false 
spirit in half-sanctified minds, converts order into immobility, laws 
into lethargy, and the piety that ought to be strong because God is 
great, grows torpid and weak under his greatness. Let him now break 
forth in miracle and holy gifts, let it be seen that he is still the living 
God, in the midst of his dead people, and they will be quickened to a 
resurrection by the sight. Now they see that God can do something 
still, and has his liberty. He can hear prayers, he can help them tri- 
umph in dark hours, their bosom sins he can help them master, all his 
promises in the Scripture he can fulfil, and they go to him with great 
expectations. They see, in these gifts, that the Scripture stands, that 
the graces, and works, and holy fruits of the apostolic age, are also 
for them. It is as if they had now a proof experimental of the resources 
embodied in the Christian plan. The living God, immediately revealed, 
and not historically only, begets a feeling of present life and power, 
and religion is no more a tradition, a second-hand light, but a grace of 
God unto salvation, operative now. [p. 453] — " Nature and the Super- 
natural," Horace Bushnell, pp. 446-448, 453. Neiv York: Scrihner, Arm- 
Strong d Co., 1877. 



3 44 MITHRAISM 

Mithraism. — Mithras, a Persian god of light, whose worship, the 
latest one of importance to be brought from the Orient to Rome, spread 
throughout the empire and became the greatest antagonist of Chris- 
tianity. 

The cult goes back to a period before the separation of the Persians 
from the Hindus, as is shown by references in the literatures of both 
stocks, the Avesta and the Vedas. . . . 

Modified, though never essentially changed, (1) by contact with the 
star worship of the Chaldeans, who identified Mithras with Shamash, god 
of the sun; (2) by the indigenous Armenian religion and other local 
Asiatic faiths; and (3) by the Greeks of Asia Minor, who identified 
Mithras with Helios, and contributed to the success of his cult by equip- 
ping it for the first time with artistic representations (the famous 
Mithras relief originated in the Pergamene school toward tlie second 
century b. c), Mithraism was first transmitted to the Roman world 
during the first century b. c. by the Cilician pirates captured by Pom- 
pey. It attained no importance, however, for nearly two centuries. . . . 

Toward the close of the second century the cult had begun to 
spread rapidly through the army, the mercantile class, slaves, and 
actual propagandists, all of which classes were largely composed of 
Asiatics. It throve especially among military posts, and in the track 
of trade, where its monuments have been discovered in greatest abun- 
dance. The German frontiers afford most evidence of its prosperity. 
Rome itself was a favorite seat of the religion. From the end of the 
second century the emperors encouraged Mithraism, because of the 
support which it afforded to the divine right of monarchs. . . . 

Finally, philosophy as well as politics contributed to the success 
of Mithraism, for the outcome of the attempt to recognize in the 
Graeco-Roman gods only forces of nature was to make the sun the 
most important of dieties; and it was the sun with whom Mithras was 
identified. 

The beginning of the downfall of Mithraism dates from a. d. 275, 
when Dacia was lost to the empire, and the invasions of the northern 
peoples resulted in the destruction of temples along a great stretch of 
frontier, the natural stronghold of the cult. The aggression of Chris- 
tianity also was now more effective, [p. 622] . . . 

The most interesting aspect of Mithraism is its antagonism to 
Christianity. Both religions were of Oriental origin; they were propa- 
gated about the same time, and spread with equal rapidity on account of 
the same causes, viz., the unity of the political world and the debase- 
ment of its moral life. At the end of the second century each had 
advanced to the farthest limits of the empire, though the one possessed 
greatest strength on the frontiers of the Teutonic countries, along the 
Danube and the Rhine, while the other throve especially in Asia and 
Africa. The points of collision were especially at Rome, in Africa, 
and in the Rhone Valley, and the struggle was the more obstinate 
because of the resemblances between the two religions, which were so 
numerous and so close as to be the subject of remark as early as the 
second century, and the cause of mutual recrimination. The fraternal 
and democratic spirit of the first communities, and their humble origin; 
the identification of the object of adoration with light and the sun; 
the legends of the shepherds with their gifts and adoration, the flood, 
and the ark; the representation in art of the fiery chariot, the drawing 
of water from the rock; the use of bell and candle, holy water and 
the communion; the sanctification of Sunday and of the 25th of Decem- 
ber; the insistence on moral conduct, the emphasis placed upon absti- 
nence and self-control; the doctrine of heaven and hell, of primitive 
revelation, of the mediation of the Logos emanating from the divine, the 



MITHRAISM 345 

atoning sacrifice, the constant warfare between good and evil and the 
final triumph of the former, the immortality of the soul, the last judg- 
ment, the resurrection of the flesh, and the fiery destruction of the 
universe, — ^are some of the resemblances which, whether real or only 
apparent, enabled Mithraism to prolong its resistance to Christianity. 
At their root lay a common Eastern origin rather than any borrowing. 
On the other hand, there were important contrasts between the 
two. Mithraism courted the favor of Roman paganism and combined 
monotheism with polytheism, while Christianity was uncompromising. 
The former as a consequence won large numbers of supporters who 
were drawn by the possibility it afEorded of adopting an attractive 
faith which did not involve a rupture with the religion of Roman so- 
ciety, and consequently with the state. In the middle of the third 
century Mithraism seemed on the verge of becoming the universal 
religion. Its eminence, however, was so largely based upon dalliance 
with Roman society, its weakness so great in having only a mythi- 
cal character, instead of a personality, as an object of adoration, and 
in excluding women from its privileges, that it fell rapidly before the 
assaults of Christianity, [p. 624] — The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 
XVIII, art. " Mithras;' pp. 62S-6M, 11th edition. 

Mithraism aad Christianity. — The diffusion of Mithraism and of 
Christianity in the Roman world was from the same direction, at about 
the same time, and its propaganda, popular rather than philosophic, 
was carried to the same class of people. In theory, ritual, and practice, 
Mithraism parodied or duplicated, after a fashion, the central ideas 
of Christianity. The birth of Mithra and of Christ were celebrated on 
the same day; tradition placed the birth of both in a cave; both re- 
garded Sunday as sacred; in both the central figure was a mediator 
(mesites) who was one of a triad or trinity; in both there was a sacri- 
fice for the benefit of the race, and the purifying power of blood from 
the sacrifice was, though in different ways, a prime motive; regenera- 
tion or the second birth was a fundamental tenet in both; the concep- 
tion of the relationship of the worshipers to each other was the same — 
they were all brothers; both had sacraments, in which baptism and a 
communion meal of bread and the cup were included; both had mys- 
teries from which the lower orders of initiates were excluded; ascetic 
ideals were common to both; the ideas of man, the soul and its immor- 
tality, heaven and hell, the resurrection from the dead, judgment after 
death, the final confiagration by which the world is to be consumed, 
the final conquest of evil, were quite similar. . . . 

There were, however, two very important differences between the 
two faiths: Christianity had as its nucleating point a historic personage; 
Mithra came out of a distant past with all its accretion of myth and 
fancy. In the second place, Mithraism, like Buddhism and Brahman- 
ism, was syncretistic, was tolerant of the practices of other cults. 
Where it could not supplant, it assimilated or adopted, [p. 419] . . . 

The great triumphs of Mithraism were not won east of the ^gean, 
even Greece was wholly inhospitable; it was in the Roman world where 
success was to be gained. The story of the transition thither is almost 
that of romance. Among the people of Asia Minor the Cilicians were 
possibly the most devoted Mithraists. In their ambition they presumed 
to dispute with the Romans the control of the seas, and this brought 
upon them the force of Roman arms and the consequent conquest by the 
Romans of the " Cilician pirates." Among the immediate results of this 
was the initiation of Roman soldiers into the mysteries — it must not 
be forgotten that the cult of Mithra appealed especially to the soldier, 
and one of the ranks in the mysteries was that of miles, or " soldier." 



346 MITHRAISM 

To this was due the introduction of the mysteries into the army, and the 
army was the principal of three methods by which Mithraism passed 
into the Roman world, [p. 420] . . . 

In the first Christian century there were at Rome associations of 
the followers of Mithra, probably organized as burial associations, in 
accordance with a common device of that period employed to acquire 
a legal status. The growth and importance of the cult in the second 
century are marked by the literary notices; Celsus opposed it to 
Christianity, Lucian made it the object of his wit. Nero desired to be 
initiated; Commodus (180-192) was received into the brotherhood; in 
the third century the emperors had a Mithraic chaplain; Aurelian 
(270-275) made the cult official; Diocletian, with Galerius and Licinius, 
in 307 dedicated a temple to Mithra; and Julian was a devotee. Indeed, 
the un-Roman cult of the worship of the emperors is a direct reflection 
of the Oriental cults in which the sun was the attendant and patron 
of the ruler. 

The four elements, fire, water, earth, and air — the first and third 
typified by the lion and the serpent — were deified and worshiped. So, 
too, the sun, moon, and planets were objects of regard. Babylonian 
influence wove into Mithraism its theories of the control by each of the 
planets of one day in the week, and with each a metal was associated, 
while the signs of the zodiac, which take creation under their influence, 
marked the devotions of the months in their turn. [p. 421] . . . 

The decay of Mithraism was begun by the attack of the barbarians 
on the Roman Empire, and naturally fell first where Mithraism was 
strongest, on the outposts. Diocletian favored the religion because it 
opposed Christianity. Under Constantine imperial favor was with- 
drawn, and Christianity demanded the repression of the cult. A Roman 
panegyric of the year 362 says that under Constantius no one dared to 
look at the rising or setting sun, and that farmers and sailors were 
afraid to observe the stars, and this very vividly suggests not only 
active persecution of the Mithraic religion, but also implies that those 
objects were regarded with worship in the way which the cultic objects 
suggest. Julian's short reign was a time of favor to this cult, for that 
prince regarded himself as under the favor of Mithra and introduced 
the practice of the worship at Constantinople. When George, patriarch 
of Alexandria, was slain by a mob roused to fury by his attempt to 
build a church on the site of a ruined mithraeum, the emperor addressed 
a comparatively mild remonstrance to the city. After Julian's death, 
the attack of Christianity was definite and furious. But the contest 
was no local nor easy matter. Mithraism had its temples from India 
to Scotland, its devotees in families of senatorial rank, among the 
mjerchants, in the ranks of laborers and slaves, and especially in the 
military camps; and these devotees were inspired with sincerity in 
worship, and were governed to no small degree by a real nobility of 
teaching, and uplifted by the hope of immortality which was a funda- 
mental tenet of the cult. At times the persecution was bloody, and 
the remains prove that the priests were sometimes slain and their 
corpses were buried in the mithrasums in order to desecrate the site. 
A feeble period of revival took place under Eugenius, but Theodosius 
ended the prospects of the cult. [p. 423] — TTie New Schaft-Herzog Ency- 
clopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol YII, art. ''Mithra, Mithraism," pp. 
419-423. 

Moabite Stone, Recovery of. — In the summer of 1869, Dr. Klein, 
a German missionary, while traveling in what was once the land of 
Moab, discovered a most curious relic of antiquity among the ruins 
of Dhiban, the ancient Dibon. This relic was a stone of black basalt, 



MOABITE STONE 3 47 

rounded at the top, two feet broad and nearly four feet high. Across 
it ran an inscription of thirty-four lines in the letters of the Phcenician 
alphabet. Dr. Klein unfortunately did not realize the importance of 
the discovery he had made; he contented himself with copying a few 
words, and endeavoring to secure the monument for the Berlin Museum. 
Things always move slowly in the Bast, and it was not until a year 
later that the negotiations for the purchase of the stone were comr 
pleted between the Prussian government on the one side and the Arabs 
and Turkish pashas on the other. At length, however, all was arranged, 
and it was agreed that the stone should be handed over to the Germans 
for the sum of £80. 

At this moment M. Clermont-Ganneau, a member of the French 
consulate at Jerusalem, with lamentable indiscretion, sent men to 
take squeezes of the inscription, and offered no less than £375 for the 
stone itself. At once the cupidity of both Arabs and pashas was 
aroused; the governor of Nablus demanded the treasure for himself, 
while the Arabs, fearing it might be taken from them, put a fire under 
it, poured cold water over it, broke it in pieces, and distributed the 
fragments as charms among the different families of the tribe. Thanks 
to M. Clermont-Ganneau, most of these fragments have now been re- 
covered, and the stone, once more put together, may be seen in the 
Museum of the Louvre at Paris. The fragments have been fitted into 
their proper places by the help of the imperfect squeezes taken before 
the monument was broken. 

When the inscription came to be read, it turned out to be a record 
of Mesha, king of Moab, of whom we are told in 2 Kings 3 that after 
Ahab's death he " rebelled against the king of Israel," and was vainly 
besieged in his capital Kirharaseth by the combined armies of Israel, 
Judah, and Edom. [pp. 73, 74] . . . The whole inscription reads like 
a chapter from one of the historical books of the Old Testament. Not 
only are the phrases the same, but the words and grammatical forms 
are, with one or two exceptions, all found in Scriptural Hebrew. We 
learn that the language of Moab differed less from that of the Israelites 
than does one English dialect from another, [p. 76] . . . 

The covenant name of the God of Israel itself occurs in the inscrip- 
tion, spelt in exactly the same way as in the Old Testament. Its 
occurrence is a proof, if any were needed, that the superstition which 
afterward prevented the Jews from pronouncing it, did not as yet 
exist. The name under which God was worshiped in Israel was familiar 
to the nations round about, [p. 77] — " Fresh Light froTti the Ancient 
Monuments,'" A. H. Sayce, M. A., pp. 73-77. London: The Religious 
Tract Society, 1890. 

Moabite Stone, Description or. — Moabite Stone, a stone bearing an 
inscription of thirty-four lines in Hebrew-Phoenician letters, which was 
discovered by the Rev. F. Klein in 1868 among the ruins of Dhiban, the 
ancient Dibon. The stone was of black basalt, rounded at the top and 
bottom, 2 ft. broad, 3 ft. 10 in. high, and 14l^ in. in thickness. The 
monument now stands in the Louvre at Paris. The inscription was 
discovered to be a record of Mesha, king of Moab, mentioned in 2 Kings 
3, referring to his successful revolt against the king of Israel. — Stand- 
ard Encyclopedia of the World's Knowledge, Vol. XVII, art. '' Moahite 
Stone," p. 353. 

Moabite Stone, Inscription on. — iThe monument, which is now one 
of the most precious treasures of the Louvre in Paris, bears an inscrip- 
tion which is the oldest specimen of Semitic alphabetic writing extant, 
commemorating the successful effort made about 860 or 850 b. c. by 



3 48 MODERN THEOIjOGY 

Mesha, king of Moab, to thrpw off the yoke of Israel. We know from 
the Old Testament record that Moab had been reduced to subjection 
by David (2 Sam. 8: 2); that it paid a heavy tribute to Ahab, king of 
Israel (2 Kings 3: 4); and that, on the death of Ahab, Mesha its 
king rebelled against Israelite rule (2 Kings 3:5), Not till the reign 
of Jehoram was any effort made to recover the lost dominion. The king 
of Israel then allied himself with the kings of Judah and Edom, and 
marching against Moab by the way of the Red Sea, inflicted upon 
Mesha a defeat so decisive that the wrath of his god, Chemosh, could 
be appeased only by the sacrifice of his son (2 Kings 3: 6 ff.). 

The historical situation described in the Old Testament narrative 
is fully confirmed by Mesha's inscription. — The International Standard 
Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. 
" Chemosh," pp. 601, 602. 

Modern Theology, Characteeistics of. — There are certain ruling 
principles which characterize modern critical theology: 1, A rooted dis- 
like of miracle; 2. An inherent objection to prophecy; 3. A disbelief in 
revelation. 

1. Science, it is presupposed, has absolutely exploded miracle. Mir- 
acle exists only in our own imagination; it is a subjective error which 
must be got rid of at any risk and at all costs. Then, I ask, what about 
the resurrection of Christ? was that also a subjective error? Did he 
or did he not rise again to life after having died? because, if he did, 
then to talk about miracle being disproved or exploded is absurd; for 
if Christ, after he had died, raised himself to life again, that was, and 
always must be, a miracle; and if we admit one miracle, it is only a 
matter of degree and a pure matter of evidence 'how many we admit. 
The charmed circle of science has been broken, and one breach renders 
others possible or even probable. Of course, if we decide that Christ 
did not rise, then there is an end of the whole matter. There is no 
further need of argument. There is no room for discussion. 

2. Prophecy must in like manner be brought within the circle of the 
regular, the ordinary, and the natural. It is not the one phenomenon 
that differentiates the Old Testament literature; it is strictly analogous 
to the poetical rhapsodies that are common to all literature, and pos- 
sesses no features that are not shared by them. If Isaiah mentions 
Cyrus, he must have had experience of Cyrus. What passes under his 
name must have been written after Cyrus appeared. 

Canon Cheyne speaks of the difficulty of explaining the " wonder- 
ful" passages of Isaiah, and says it arises "partly from the abruptness 
with which they are introduced, partly from the apparent inconsistency 
of some of the expressions," and " partly from the extraordinary distinct- 
ness with which the most striking of them, at any rate, prefigure the life 
of Jesus Christ." The same writer admits that as we read chapter 53 
we are conscious of something of the impression it produced on the Earl 
of Rochester, who " was convinced, not only by the reasonings he 
had about it, which satisfied his understanding, but by a power which 
did so effectually constrain him, that he did, ever after, as firmly 
believe in his Saviour as if he had seen him in the clouds." Then 
if this be so, where, I would ask, is the inconsistency or the unreason- 
ableness of ascribing the special character of this passage to the divine 
intention which was claimed for it by Philip the evangelist? Such an 
inference would, of course, not be scientific, for it is impossible to have 
a scientific proof of any such thing as prophecy. It is impossible to 
have a scientific proof of the special manifestation of the will of God. 
There was nothing scientific iij the action of Christ or the teaching of 



MODERN THEOLOGY 349 

Christ. Nor is it possible to have any special declaration of the will of 
God conveyed- in a scientific manner or by scientific means, for science 
is concerned only with the orderly workings of the divine mind in na- 
ture; whereas, if prophecy is a fact, it is independent of, and superior 
to, the ordinary operations of nature. Every attempt, therefore, to 
explain the phenomena of prophecy by reducing them to the terms of 
the experimental and the natural must necessarily be destructive of 
prophecy, if, indeed, there is any such thing. 

Now my position is, that the phenomena of Old Testament prophecy, 
apart altogether from its productive features, are such as to defy ex- 
planation upon natural principles, and to be entirely without parallel 
elsewhere; and I point to Isaiah 53 as illustrating my position. It 
defies explanation, whether written in the sixth century or the eighth, 
and as it thus defies explanation upon any other supposition than that 
of Philip the evangelist, a strong presumption is created that the char- 
acter he claimed for it is its real character. This, of course, is not a 
position that is capable of being demonstrated, or therefore that is 
scientific; but, so far as it is a just and valid position, it is one that 
involves and implies the exercise of the supernatural. And if the 
prophet was enabled to write, as he did, in language which could not 
refer to himself or others, but did refer to Jesus Christ, and was in- 
tended to do so, this can no more be accounted for or explained naturally 
than the mention of Cyrus by name can. And it is only throwing dust 
in our eyes to say that the mention of Cyrus by name, in the time of 
Isaiah, is more contrary to " the analogy of prophecy," or more diflicult 
of explanation, than the utterances of the fifty-third chapter are, always 
supposing that these utterances were intended by the Holy Spirit to 
refer solely to Jesus Christ, and were imparted to Isaiah with that 
intent. 

With this proviso it is certainly not more easy to account for or 
explain Isaiah 53 if we suppose it written at Babylon in the sixth 
century than at Jerusalem in the eighth. Nothing whatever is gained 
on behalf of " the analogy of prophecy " by referring it to the later 
date, unless, that is, in so doing, we hope to elude suspicion as to our 
disbelief of its true character by bringing all its phenomena within the 
limits of the purely natural, historical, and personal. But if that is our 
secret hope, the sooner we confess it the better, in order that men may 
know what it is we are really aiming at, which is the denial of 
prophecy as a phenomenon out of the region of the ordinary, the ex- 
perimental, and the scientific. 

If Isaiah 53 stood alone, it might be more easy to deal with it; but 
it is one only of a large number of scriptures that must ever remain 
hopeless enigmas if dealt with as merely natural productions, for it 
is not in the prophets only that we meet with apparent prophecies. 
The Psalms are full of passages that can never have referred to any 
human writer, and the books of the law, and the historical books, as a 
whole, present numerous features that are confirmatory of this position, 
and are of the nature of prophecy. And it is only by doing violence to 
these and the like features that we can reduce the Scriptures of the 
Old Testament to the same level as the ordinary literature of other na- 
tions. The Old Testament literature either is or is not entirely excep- 
tional; if it is not, we must belie its witness to itself and obliterate 
its most characteristic features; if it is, there is nothing to be done 
but to confess its unique character and to decide accordingly. 

3. The dislike of miracle and the objection to prophecy arise from 
and involve a disbelief in revelation as a real and actual fact, and this 
disbelief infects and underlies the mass of our modern thought. The 



350 MODERN THEOLOGY 

simple question is, whether the God of nature has ever spoken to us in 
any other way than by nature, or whether the indications of his having 
done so may not rather be referred to the spontaneous action of our 
own minds, which we father upon God and attribute to him, when they 
really emanate from ourselves. This is the position of Kuenen, who 
regards Christianity as one of the principal religions of the world, with 
no more claim to a real objective origin than any other. 

All the miracles of Scripture, therefore, are resolved at best into 
erroneous subjective impressions, and the prophets of the Old Testa- 
ment had nothing more than their own convictions to rest on and are 
proved to have been false prophets by the failure of their predictions to 
be realized. 

Now, of course, if we take the Old Testament alone, and by itself, 
it may be possible to establish this position more or less successfully; 
but if the Old Testament is part of a whole, of which the ultimate and 
more significant part is the New Testament, and the facts of the Chris- 
tian religion, then we are not only forbidden so to take it, but our esti- 
mate of- the Old Testament must be affected by our judgment con- 
cerning the New. 

We fall back then, as before, upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
This either was, or was not, a fact. If the laws of nature are supreme 
and universal, it obviously was not a fact, because it fundamentally con- 
tradicts them; but if it actually did occur, without mistake or illusion, 
then it not only is impossible to say what other marvelous facts may not 
have occurred in the long course of preparation for that event, but also 
the occurrence of it renders probable such a course of preparation, with 
all its attendant features of miracle and prophecy. 

But if Jesus Christ really and actually lived again after having 
died, it becomes absolutely certain that God has spoken to us in a 
manner other than by nature. For he has spoken to us by his Son, 
who exercised an absolute command over nature, and appealed to his 
command over nature as supplying the credentials of his mission and 
origin. I by no means say that this is the only way of representing 
or regarding the mission of Christ, but I do venture to affirm most 
emphatically that in whatever way we regard Christ, we cannot fail 
to recogninze the fact that he advanced his own mighty works as bear- 
ing valid testimony to his divine claims. We cannot therefore accept 
him and reject his works, and we cannot accept either him or his works 
without acknowledging the action of the supernatural, and without 
taking our stand upon an elevation which is above the reach and the 
demonstration of science. It is impossible to explain scientifically 
any one of Christ's miracles, as it is to prove or explain scientifically 
his own resurrection. But if we have sufiicient reason to believe that 
God has actually spoken to us by his Son, we must regard it as not 
wholly improbable that he may have spoken as truly and miraculously 
in the ages before he came, as he did when he came in the fulness of 
time. The one question which underlies all others, is the question 
whether or not Christ truly rose from the dead, and whether or not he 
had an exclusive right to be called the Son of God. If he had, then the 
cause of supernatural religion is secure; but if there is no adequate 
reason to believe in the supernatural, then it becomes impossible to 
believe in Jesus Christ; for not only did he deceive himself, but he 
did likewise most completely deceive us. 

If, however, we accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a literal 
and actual fact, a rising again to life after having been dead, we are 
virtually committed to a belief in the general character and framework 
of that history which led up to it, and of which it claimed to be the 



MOHAMMEDANISM 3 51 

purpose and the outcome. The redemption of Israel from Egypt, the 
giving of the law, the divine guidance and direction of the fortunes of 
the nation, as declared and interpreted by the prophets, are all presup- 
posed in the history which set the seal to those events, and consequently 
it is of vital importance that these things are not fictions or fictitious 
representations of distorted facts. Every investigation therefore which 
tends to confirm and verify them as historic and real is of value in 
relation to the history of Christ, and every investigation which tends 
to show that the true origin of the law was not human, but divine, is 
likewise of value, and the v/itness of the prophets is conclusive evidence 
to their estimate of its character as divine, and so far confirmatory evi- 
dence of the claims of Christ. — " The Law in the Prophets," Rev. 
Stanley Leathes, D. D., pp. 271-277. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 
1891. 

Mohammed. — Mohammed was born at Mecca in Arabia, 570 a. d., 
of the powerful tribe of the Koreish. In early life he was a camel 
driver noted for his faithfulness, and while acting as business man- 
ager of the wealthy widow Khadijah for a year, won her love and 
they were married in Mohammed's twenty-sixth year. 

The religion of the Arabs was at this time mostly a degraded 
fetischism, but Mohammed was accustomed to spend long periods on 
Mt. Hira in fasting and prayer. About this time he began to see 
visions, and to suffer attacks of convulsions. We believe these visions 
and convulsions to have unquestionably been due to his own weakness, 
long fasts, and overexertion: the ascetics of the desert of Egypt, and, 
in fact, all such ascetics have been subject to similar delusions, while 
even overworked bicycle racers today have fancies not unlike them in 
real nature. Mohammed thought the angel Gabriel revealed to him 
in succession some of the earliest chapters of the Koran, and began 
preaching, first for three years in secret, then nine years in public, but 
with few converts. 

In 620 A. D. he converted six men of the town of Yatreb, and two 
years later the whole town swore allegiance to the new faith. His 
followers at Mecca emigrated to Yatreb, and later he escaped from 
Mecca and joined them. Henceforth Yatreb was called Medina (City 
of the Prophet). War arose between the Koreish and Medina. Moham- 
med was at first successful, then defeated, and glad to sign a truce that 
was soon broken by the Koreish. He thereupon marched against 
them with ten thousand men, and they surrendered without a battle. 

His faith spread rapidly, and at his death in 632 a. d. was the 
religion of Arabia and had begun to encroach on the Greek and Persian 
empires. 

The results of Mohammedism have been greatly underestimated. 
In the century after Mohammed's death it wrested Asia Minor, Africa, 
and Spain from Christianity, more than half of the civilized world, 
and established a civilization, the highest in the world during the Dark 
Ages. — " The Library of Original Sources,'' edited dy Oliver J. Thatcher, 
Vol. IV, pp. 240, 241. Milwaukee, Wis.: University Research Extension 
Company, copyright 1907. 

Mohammedanism. — Mohammed divides with Buddha and the Brah- 
man the religious sovereignty of the Oriental mind, yet the sovereign- 
ties are in idea, in type, and in form worlds apart. All three are rooted 
in religion, but the faith of the Brahman is a polytheism so multi- 
tudinous and tolerant as to include everything that men may call 
deity, if only the deity will consent to be included and to be respectful 
to those who dwelt in the pantheon before him. The sovereignty of 



352 MOHAMMEDANISM 

Buddha is that of the ideal man and the idealized pity, which, without 
concern or care for any god, draws humanity toward the dreamless 
beatitude he has himself attained; while Mohammed's is strictly de- 
rivative and representative, due to his being the one sufficient and 
authoritative spokesman of the one merciful and almighty God. The 
Brahman's sovereignty is social and heritable, came to him by the 
blood which defined his place and function in society as. well as his 
office before the gods and on behalf of men; but both Buddha's and 
Mohammed's may be described as in a sense personal, though it was 
acquired by the one through his own efforts, achievements, and merits, 
and granted to the other by the will and deed of his God. The sov- 
ereignty of the Brahman is expressed in the society he has organized, 
the system, at once natural and artificial, of caste; while Buddha's is 
expressed in a society whose orders correspond to his theory of merit, 
and Mohammed's in a brotherhood where all are equal before a God 
too great to know any respect of persons. The image, or the symbol, 
of his god which the Brahman loves is to Mohammed but a shameful 
and empty idol, while the statue which the Buddhist reveres speaks to 
him of a still more graceless idolatry, the supersession of the uncreated 
God by the created man he had appointed to be his minister. But 
though his sovereignty is not represented to the eye by any image, 
it yet has a fitter and more imperious symbol, a book which reveals the 
mind of God and proclaims the law which man is bound under the 
most awful and inexorable sanctions to obey. The worship it enjoins 
is one of stern yet majestic simplicity; it concerns God only, and there 
is but the one God who has made Mohammed his final and sovereign 
prophet, and declared through him that all idols are " idleness and 
vanity." — " The Philosophy of the Christian Religion,'' Andrew Martin 
Fairbairn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., pp. S77, 278. New York: George H. 
Doran Company, copyright 1902. 

Mohammedanisin. — Circumcision is used in Mohammedanism as 
the badge of the faith. It is commonly performed between the sixth and 
eighth year. — Standard Encyclopedia of the World's Knowledge, Yol. 
XVII, art. " Mohammedanism," p. 362. 

Mohammedanism. — Mohammedanism has unique claims upon the 
interest of the student of religions. ... It is the one world religion 
outside of Christianity the origins of which lie open in the light of his- 
tory. It arose in one man's lifetime, was shaped by one hand and 
directed by a single mentality. It is a religion in which the miracu- 
lous is minimized, yet within eighty years it won an empire as great 
as Christianity's in the time of Constantine, and it is still extending 
its influence, [p. 436] . . . 

Idolatry was already under suspicion, and there was consequently 
an opening for the prophet's resolute preaching. Mohammed's repute 
for wisdom grew with the frequency with which he was called upon to 
act as arbiter; his decisions he claimed not as his own, but as the 
dictates of Allah, and his position soon came to be practically that of 
city judge and dictator. Ordinances for practice were soon formulated 
by the prophet; prayer was directed toward Mecca (not Jerusalem, 
which, in the endeavor to conciliate the Jews and gain their support, 
he had formerly adopted), the fast of Tisri was changed for that of 
Ramadan. The five fundamentals of Islam were conceived and formu- 
lated at Medina. Most important of all, citizenship was made dependent 
not on family but on faith, preparing the way for a united Arabia and 
a world religion. For the triumph of the faith the bonds of kinship 
had to yield if they stood in its way — Mohammed did not blanch at 



MOHAMMEDANISM 353 

fratricidal war. The idolater, even though a brother, was doomed 
unless he gave up this practice, and to the believer belonged the 
idolater's goods, [p. 437] . . . 

The fundamental theological doctrine of Islam is the unity of God, 
whose will, declared by the prophet Mohammed, is law for man. The 
doctrine of God is intensely and baldly unitarian. Special points an- 
tagonized were the Christian trinity and the deity of Christ. Emphasis 
was laid upon the sovereignty of Allah and his omnipotence. Allah 
was not a philosophic first cause, but a present active agency ever work- 
ing in his world and accomplishing his purposes. In other words, 
Mohammed's was a practical, not a speculative monotheism. Allah was 
sharply distinguished from his creation, and the latter included evil 
as well as good. 

From no logical consequences of this doctrine did the founder 
shrink. Right is right, not because of its essence, but because Allah 
decrees it. Hence Mohammedan predestination is arbitrary in its 
absoluteness, acquiring the force of fatalism. The practical result 
was the inspiration of a magnificent but terrible courage. Arab war- 
riors went into battle convinced that their life span was so definitely 
determined that whether they stayed at home or went to the fight their 
hap would surely overtake them. This fanaticism was intensified by 
the eschatology of the faith, which is gross, crude, and vivid. Both 
heaven and hell are material, both are preceded by resurrection and 
judgment, through which all Moslems pass with success — though some 
may have to be purified in purgatory. But the warrior who dies in 
battle is sure of paradise. 

It is to these facts that the dread of a jehad, or holy war, is due. 
Hell is in seven regions, of which the first is purgatory; to hell all 
infidels (non-Mohammedans) are destined. Heaven is across a chasm 
over which is a bridge broad and easy for the believer, but shrinking 
to the width of a razor's edge when infidels attempt its passage, and 
they then fall from it into the fire which for them is eternal. While 
the delights of the Moslem heaven as portrayed in the Koran are 
sensual, there can be no doubt that, as in other religions, the idea 
conveyed depends upon the mental and spiritual culture of the in- 
dividual, [p. 439] . . . 

Briefiy, the four practical points of the Mohammedan creed are: 
CI) prayer five times a day, directed toward Mecca; (2) almsgiving 
©n a fixed scale at least, above that scale according to one's inclination; 
i^} jfe,sting in the daytime during Ramadan; (4) pilgrimage to Mecca 
at least once in a lifetime. These things are regarded as most firmly 
binding on all Moslems, [pp. 439, 440] — The New Schaff-Herzog Ency^ 
clopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VII, art. " Mohammed, Moham- 
Tnedanism^" pp. 436-440. 

Mohammedanisin, Extent of — Mohammedanism possesses some- 
thing which appeals to certain races or certain stages of culture, and 
the attraction is still potent. It now stretches in a broad belt from 
the Atlantic shores of Africa over all the equatorial and northern part 
of that continent, through the Turkish dominions, Persia, Turkes- 
tan, Afghanistan, India, and the Chinese Empire to the islands of the 
Pacific; and it is making more converts in Africa and the islands 
northeast of Asia than is Christianity, the other great proselytizing 
religion of the world. Probably 200,000,000 is a conservative estimate 
of the number of Mohammedans at the present time. — Nelson's En- 
cyclopedia, Vol. VIII, art. ''Mohammedanism," p. 227. 

23 



W 
H 

o 





03 








[ziah 
, Aha- 








ee 

<3 












^ 1 

1 ^ 




ee 




"1 


P 

1-5 












•I-M 

ee 




a'o 


M 


a 

o 








o "^ 
«« OT ro 




a 

ee ce 

•l-H 


tf 


-gffl 

^ ^ x5 ,a "^ 


,Q 








-a 


-^ -^ 2 


.2 


ce ee ^ ce ^ 




o 








_= _, o o 


02 


CQ CQ CO 




'n *n 'n *n 5 

N N CS3 tS3 ,a 




a» 


09 


ee ee 


ee 

02 


CO M Q "5 


ee 
o 


ee ce a 
o o ^ 






<J 


< < 


<J 


<< < 1-5 H, 


•-5 


1-5 1-5 <5 


P 


ID p p p<l 












^ 




02 
















ee 




o 
















•s 




a 






QQ 










.£^ 




<tj 






g 










^ 




^3 






w 










1 




fl 






1 






;3 




=3 "S 








^3 


Pui 


^ 




.a 

i-s 








•^ o 




O 


;z< 
















03 




o 
















^ 


•^ rn 


OQ 


OS 








02 






-*J 


-M JO 


Is 




- 


2 2 


02 

ee 


rA " -^ - 


^ 


- ,. ,. 


o 

a 


IE- -- 


Cw >• .« <« 

0) 






^ P3 




















W 


(M 


W 


'<:t< <M 


t- 


cq <M C<1 <M 


oo 


t- «5 iH 


CO 


tH O <M O 05 


hJ 


(M 




(M 




iH <M tH 


C<1 


tH iH -* 




tH m 




l-H 




















^ 












1— 1 






H 


< 

o 

w 
o 

H 


ce 
ee 


ee 

ee f-H 


g 


-a a 

T -er* 'n o 

O <1 <l5 H5 


t-5 


2 S 
S ce 

oe ^ ^ 

O 02 O 

^ ce ^H 
0) o <u 

^-5 t-5 1-5 


_ee 

ce 
o 

ee 

N 


a § .2 K ce 

?3 -2 ^ <l5 0) 
jg f3 Kjj W 02 

-S vS 1 ^^2 

M g Ph Ph ffi 




tH 


w 


CO "rP 


to 


CO t-^ 00 ai 


O 


iH CQ Co' 
rH tH tH 




K5 <;o t-^ oo OS 

tH iH iH tH rH 


02 


iH 


eq 


CO 


•r^ 




U5 




«o i> ftd 05 


>^ H 




















Q 











- 








^-^—^^ 




" 








. 




. 




T3 ' 




;!. <= 


CO 














® • 




- o -^ 


» 






1 




• 




riXj • 




rt-Mo 


O 














•^ „• 




W Ttl 


M 
fa 






1 • 

2 2 

^ ee 




1 » 

fl ee 




0) CQ 






o 










ce OJ 




,£1 O 




a-H i • 
a5.a s £ 


H 
H 










1- 




bflr-l 
02 P! 

o 




<ij 






-1 




-§ 




>i^ 




>^ "^ ^ 


^ 










^ ce 




C^ c Pi >> 


rM 






-»-> o 




-♦J o 




+"* , 




+-> .s to 








ee X5 




ce ^ 




ee 




ee ;3 0) o 








o'« 




-3 =« 




o ' 




3 ^. tHl- 






13 




'O 




'V 




Td 


Q 






l-H 




t— 1 




(—1 




h- ( 


^ 






. 




. 










S 






hH 




l-H 
t— 1 




(-3 
t— 1 
1— < 




hH 



Oi 

o 
o 

CO 
^25 



Q. 



ci 






o 



tI3 



eq 



354 



Q 

d 
a 

M 

> 
M 

Q 

W 

i 

d 
o 



is 



a 

c3 O 






O O ^ _ 

1-5 »-3 Z <3 



s a 

o o 



S «3 
0) ^ 

<u - 



r-Xl ee 

!3 03 ^ 

^ OS O 

a> 0) o) oi o c^ 



t-5 1-5 H; H-a 1-5 [sj 



m 
O 

0) o 



o 



a 

m 






i=l 

<1 1-5 



o o 
o 

03 



•1-1 

o 



•fH 

d 
o 

0) 

N 



o 

»-5 



d 



d 



a 

d 



d 



OP 

t-s 



d 

'S 

d 

a 

N 



en 

O) 
t- CO tH U3 



d d - 
(£> CD 



CQ 03 

(-> (l (4 (h 

^ $ d d 

o CD o ® 



00 tH ?© O 05 N 
■^ Cq kO 



;D ?C> Ol ITS <M 
tH tH (M ITS 



;^^^;^ 



d 

•r-> 

d 
o ^ 



o 

<j t-5 



d 

•-5 <5 



d 

•pH 

d 

ISJ 

< 
o 

.13 N d 
03 d "-< 

d fl N 









a^ 



l-5<t^ffi^<^ t-5H5»-, 



y d 

O 4> 

c) a? 

t-s N 



i-HMCOTj^lOCD C^OOOS OTH<MeOTt<U:>COt-OOOS 



•Soi d 

CJ 03 S> 
Q O CO 

•5b ^^ 

3 <X> 13 



o 
CQ 

d 



t^ 00 

o 



« 



a) w 

d > 

OJ OJ cc 

5 d o 



O M 



TS 


X3 


d 
d 


d 


<v 


1 


d 








o 


d 


a> 


> 


Q 






> 


-a 


(V 


t4 


tf 


tf 




Eh 





03 

d 



CO 
C<I 



d 
o 

d 



0) 

d 
•1— I 

o 

0) 

P 

d 

d 



OS 
00 

O 



5S 

o 

CO 



si 

o 






A 









5i> 

o 



ttj 



fiQ 



e 



355 



356 



MONASTICISM 



Monasticism, Historical Notes Concerning. — It was during the 
period between the third and the sixth century that there grew up in 
the church the institution known as Monasticism. This was so remark- 
able a system, and one that exerted so profound an influence upon 
medieval and even later history, that we must here acquaint ourselves 
with at least its spirit and aims. 

The term " monasticism," in its widest application, denotes a life 
of austere self-denial and of seclusion from the world, with the object 
of promoting the interests of the soul. As thus defined, the system 
embraced two prominent classes of ascetics: (1) Hermits, or anchorites, 
— persons who, retiring from the world, lived solitary lives in desolate 
places; (2) cenobites, or monks, who formed communities and lived 
usually under a common roof. . . . 

St. Anthony, an Egyptian ascetic (b. about a. d. 251), who by his 
example and influence gave a tremendous impulse to the movement, 
is called the " Father of the Hermits." . . . 

Most renowned of all the anchorites of the East was St. Simeon 
Styli'tes, the Saint of the Pillar (d. a. d. 459), who spent thirty-six 
years on a column only three feet in diameter at the top, which he had 
gradually raised to a height of over fifty feet. 

During the fourth century the anchorite type of asceticism, which 
was favored by the mild climate of the Eastern lands and especially by 
that of Egypt, assumed in some degree the monastic form; that is to 
say, the fame of this or that anchorite or hermit drew about him a 
number of disciples, whose rude huts or cells formed what was known 
as a laura, the nucleus of a monastery. 

Soon after the cenobite system had been established in the East 
it was introduced into Europe, and in an astonishingly short space of 
time spread throughout all the Western countries where Christianity 
had gained a foothold. Here it prevailed to the almost total exclusion 
of the hermit mode of life. Monasteries arose on every side. The 
number that fled to these retreats was vastly augmented by the disorder 
and terror attending the invasion of the barbarians and the overthrow 
of the empire in the West. — " Mediwval and Modern History" Philip 
Van Ness Myers, pp. 22-24. Boston: Ginn & Co., copyrigJit 1919. 

Moses, Genealogy oi-\ — The immediate pedigree of Moses is as 
follows: 

Levi 



Gershon Kohath Merari 

Amram =z Jochebed 

Hur = Miriam Aaron = Elisheba Moses = Zipporah 



Nadab 



Abihu 



Eleazar 



Ithamar Gershom 



Eliezer 



Phineas 



Jonathan 



— "A Dictionary of the Bidle,'' William Smith, LL. D., p. 417, Teacher's 
edition. Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, copyright 1884. 



NINEVEH, NOTES ON 357 

Nahum, Time of. — The prophet Nahum uttered his prophecy ac- 
cording to Josephus (Antiq., ix, 11) during the reign of Jotham, who 
died B. c. 742.— " Fulfilled Prophecy'' Rev. W. Goode, D. D., F. 8. A., 
p. 179, ^d edition. London: James Nisbet d Co., 1891. 

Nineveh, Historical Notes on. — -Nineveh, and Ninus, as it was 
most usually called by the Greeks and Romans, was, as we said 
before, the capital city of the Assyrian Empire; and the capital is fre- 
quently put for the whole empire, the prosperity or ruin of the one 
being involved in that of the other. This was a very ancient city, 
being built by Asshur or as others say by Nimrod; for those words of 
Moses (Gen. 10: 11), which our translators, together with most of 
the ancient versions, render thus: " Out of that land went forth Asshur, 
and builded Nineveh," others translate as the Chaldee paraphrast trans- 
lates them, and as they are rendered in the margin of our Bibles, " Out 
of that land he," that is Nimrod, the person spoken of before, "went 
forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh." 

It is well known that the word " Asshur " in Hebrew is the name 
of the country as well as the name of the man, and the preposition is 
often omitted, so that the words may very well be translated, " he 
went forth into Assyria," And Moses is here giving an account of the 
sons of Ham, and it may seem foreign to his subject to intermix the 
story of any of the sons of Shem, as Asshur was. Moses afterward 
recounts the sons of Shem, and Asshur among them; and it is pre- 
sumed that he would hardly relate his actions, before he had men- 
tioned his nativity, or even his name, contrary to the series of the 
genealogy and to the order of the history. But notwithstanding this 
I incline to understand the text literally as it is translated, " Out of 
that land went forth Asshur," being expelled thence by Nimrod, " and 
builded Nineveh " and other cities, in opposition to the cities which 
Nimrod had founded in the land of Shinar. And neither is it foreign 
to the subject, nor contrary to the order of the history, upon the 
mention of Nimrod's invading and seizing the territories of Asshur, to 
relate whither Asshur retreated, and where he fortified himself against 
him. But by whomsoever Nineveh was built, it might afterward be 
greatly enlarged and improved by Ninus, and called after his name, 
whoever Ninus was, for that is altogether uncertain, [p. 126] . . . 

The inhabitants of Nineveh, like those of other great cities, abound- 
ing in wealth and luxury, became very corrupt in their morals. Where- 
upon it pleased God to commission the prophet Jonah to preach unto 
them the necessity of repentance, as the only means of averting their 
impending destruction: and such was the success of his preaching, that 
both the king and the people repented and turned from their evil ways, 
and thereby for a time delayed the execution of the divine judgments. 

Who this king of Assyria was we cannot be certain, we can only 
make conjectures, his name not being mentioned in the book of Jonah. 
Archbishop Usher supposeth him to have been Pul, the king of Assyria, 
who afterward invaded the kingdom of Israel in the days of Menahem 
(2 Kings 15: 19) ; it being very agreeable to the methods of Providence 
to make use of a heathen king who was penitent, to punish the impeni- 
tency of God's own people Israel. But it should seem more probable, 
that this prince was one of the kings of Assyria, before any of those 
who are mentioned in Scripture. For Jonah is reckoned the most 
ancient of all the prophets usually so called, whose writings are pre- 
served in the canon of Scripture. We know that he prophesied of the 
restoration of the coasts of Israel taken by the king of Syria, which 
was accomplished by Jereboam the Second (2 Kings 14: 25); and there- 
fore Jonah must have lived before that time, and is with great reason. 



358 NINEVEH, SIZE OF 



supposed by Bishop Lloyd in his chronological tables, to have prophe- 
sied at the latter end of Jehu's, or the beginning of the reign of Jehoa- 
haz, when the kingdom of Israel was reduced very low, and greatly 
oppressed by Hazael, king of Syria (2 Kings 10: 32). If he prophesied 
at that time, there intervened Jehoahaz's reign of seventeen years, 
Joash's reign of sixteen years, Jeroboam's of forty and one years, 
Zachariah's of six months, Shallum's of one month, and Menahem was 
seated on the throne of Israel, before any mention is made of Pul, the 
king of Assyria; and therefore we may reasonably conclude from the 
distance of time, which was above seventy years, that Jonah was not 
sent to Pul, the king of Assyria, but to one of his predecessors, though 
to whom particularly we are unable to discover, for the want before 
complained of, the want of Assyrian histories, which no doubt would 
have related so memorable a transaction, [pp. 128, 129] — " Disserta- 
tions on the Pi'ophecies," Thomas Newton, D. D., pp. 126-129. London: 
B. Blake, 1840. 

Nineveh, Size of. — Jonah is said by Josephus (Antiq. ix, ch. 10) 
to have prophesied during the reign of Jeroboam II, which lasted 
from B. c 82 4 to B. c. 783. His prophecy is generally considered as 
of about the date b. c. 8 00; and was delivered apparently when 
either Pul, or the father of Pul, reigned at Nineveh. The account 
given by Diodorus Siculus is in his History, book 2, near the be- 
ginning, and refers to the city as originally built by Ninus. It may 
be observed that the shape and size of the city as here described, — 
namely, an oblong whose sides measured 150 furlongs, and the ends 
90 furlongs, — correspond pretty well with the site as marked out by 
Mr. Layard in his " Nineveh and Its Remains." It is stated also in 
Mr. Layard's remarks on Colonel Rawlinson's " Outlines of Assyrian 
History," appended to the twenty-ninth Report of the Royal Asiatic 
Society for 1852, that he is " convinced that whatever may have 
been the original names of the various royal quarters or inclosures 
represented by Nimrud, Koyunjik, Khursabad, etc., they were all 
known at one period by the name of Nineveh, and formed the great 
city described by the Sacred Writings, and the Greek historians and 
geographers; " and that " Colonel Rawlinson himself stated as much 
in his paper read before the Society on his return to England two 
years ago; " and that " Captain Jones, in a recent letter, states that 
he had established, by trigonometrical survey, the fact previously 
conjectured by Mr. Layard, that the same great ruin of Nimrud, 
Karamless, Khursabad, and Koyunjik stood at the four angles of 
a perfect parallelogram." And when we read that the founder of the 
city not only gave liberty to people of any other nation, in any num- 
ber, to dwell there, but allowed the citizens a large territory next 
adjoining to them (Diod. Sic, ibid.), and know that it was common 
in the great Eastern cities to include a large portion of land for the 
pasture of cattle, we need not be surprised at its extent. At that 
early period a high wall was alone almost sufficient for defense, and 
did not need to be manned as was afterward required when imple- 
ments for carrying on a siege had been invented. Strabo, a high 
authority, says that it was much larger ( toXv fiei^cov [polu meizon'] ) 
than Babylon, and he makes the compass of Babylon 3 85 stadia. It 
appears to have been, in fact, a walled district, as it is clear that 
Babylon was. — " Fulfilled Prophecy'' Rev. W. Goode, D. D., F. S. A., 
pp. 179, ISO, 2d edition. London: James Nishet & Co.. 1891. 



OFFERING, OBJECTS PRESENTED 359 

Offering, Three Objects Presented. — In each offering there are 
at least three distinct objects presented to us. There is the offering, 
the priest, the offerer. A definite knowledge of the precise import of 
each of these is absolutely requisite if we would understand the 
offerings. 

What, then, is the offering? what the priest? what the offerer? 
Christ is the offering, Christ is the priest, Christ is the offerer. Such 
and so manifold are the relations in which Christ has stood for man 
and to man, that no one type or set of types can adequately represent 
the fulness of them. Thus we have many distinct classes of types, and 
further variations in these distinct classes, each of which gives us 
one particular view of Christ, either in his character, or in his work 
or person. But see him as we may for sinners, he fills more than one 
relation. This causes the necessity of many emblems. 

First he comes as offerer, but we cannot see the offerer without 
the offering, and the offerer is himself the offering, and he who is both 
offerer and offering is also the priest. As man under the law, our 
substitute, Christ stood for us toward God as offerer. He took " the 
body prepared for him " as his offering, that in it and by it he might 
reconcile us to God. Thus, when sacrifice and offering had wholly 
failed, — when at man's hand God would no more accept them, — then 
said he, " Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I 
delight to do thy will, O God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Thus 
his body was his offering: he willingly offered it; and then as priest he 
took the blood into the holiest. 

As offerer, we see him man under the law, standing our substi- 
tute, for us to fulfil all righteousness. 

As priest, we have him presented as the mediator, God's messenger 
between himself and Israel. While as the offering, he is seen the 
innocent victim, a sweet savor to God, yet bearing the sin and dying 
for it. 

Thus in the selfsame type the offerer sets forth Christ in his 
person, as the one who became man to meet God's requirements; the 
offering presents him in his character and work, as the victim by which 
the atonement was ratified; while the priest gives us a third picture of 
him, in his official relation, as the appointed mediator and intercessor. 
Accordingly, when we have a type in which the offering is most prom- 
inent, the leading thought will be Christ the victim. On the other 
hand, when the offerer or priest predominates, it will respectively be 
Christ as man or Christ as mediator. 

Connected with this there is also another particular, the import 
of which must be known to understand the offerings. I refer to the 
laying of the offerer's hands on the head of the victim offered. This 
act in itself was nothing more than the expression of the identity of 
the offerer and offering. In each case the giving up of the offering 
represented the surrender of the person of the offerer. The offering, 
whatever it might be, stood for, and was looked upon as identical 
with the offerer. In the one case, in the sweet savor offerings, it 
represented the offerer as an accepted worshiper, wholly surrendering 
himself upon the altar of the Lord, to be a sweet savor to Jehovah. 
In the other case, as in the sin and trespass offerings, where the 
offerer came as a sinner with confession, the offerer in his offering 
surrendered himself as a sinner to God's judgment, and was cast out 
as accursed into the wilderness. We know him who stood in both these 
relations, when in the body prepared for him " he gave himself." — 
" The Law of the Offerings,'' Andrew Jukes, pp. 36-38, 17th edition. 
1 ondon: James Nisbet d Co. 



360 OFFERING, BURNT 

Offering, Burnt, Distinctive Character of. — In its contrast to 
the other offerings, at least four points may be enumerated: It was, 
(1) A sweet savor offering; and, (2) Offered for acceptance; in these 
two particulars it differed from the sin offerings; (3) Thirdly, it was 
the offering of a life: in this it differed from the meat offering; (4) 
Fourthly, it was wholly burnt; here it differed from all, and particularly 
from the peace offering, [p. 47] 

1. . . . Now the burnt offering was of the first class, a sweet- 
smelling savor; as such in perfect contrast with the sin offerings. We 
are not here, therefore, to consider Christ as the sin-bearer, but as man 
in perfectness meeting God in holiness. The thought here is not, " God 
hath made him to be sin for us," but rather, " He loved us, and gave 
himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling 
savor." Jesus, blessed be his name, both in the burnt offering and sin 
offering, stood as our representative. When he obeyed, he obeyed 
" for us; " when he suffered, he suffered " for us." But in the burnt 
offering he appears for us, not as our sin-bearer, but as man offering 
to God something which is most precious to him. We have here what 
we may in vain search for elsewhere, — man giving to God what truly 
satisfies him. The thought here is not that sin has been judged, and that 
man in Christ has borne the judgment; this would be the sin offering. 
The burnt offering shows us man going even further, and giving to God 
an offering so pleasing to him that the sweet savor of it satisfies him, 
and will satisfy him forever. With our experience of what man is, it 
seems wondrous that he should ever perfectly perform his part to 
Godward. But in Christ man has so performed it: his offering was "a 
sweet savor unto the Lord." [pp. 48, 49] . . . 

2. But the burnt offering was not only " a sweet savor," it was also 
an offering " for acceptance," — that is, it was offered to God to secure 
the acceptance of the offerer. So we read (I give the more correct trans- 
lation), "he shall offer it for his acceptance." To understand this, we 
must recur for a moment to the position Christ occupied as offerer. He 
stood for man as man under the law, and, as under law, his acceptance 
depended on his perfectness. God had made man upright; but he had 
sought out many inventions. One dispensation after another had tried 
whether, under any circumstances, man could render himself acceptable 
to God. But age after age passed away; no son of Adam was found who 
could meet God's standard. The law was man's last trial, whether, with 
a revelation of God's mind, he could or would obey it. But this trial, 
like the others, ended in failure; " there was none righteous, no, not 
one." 

How, then, was man to be reconciled to God? How could he be 
brought to meet God's requirements? One way yet remained, and the 
Son of God accepted it. " He took not on him the nature of angels; but 
he took the seed of Abraham;" and in his person, once and forever, 
man was reconciled to God. In effecting this, Jesus, as man's represent- 
ative, took man's place, where he found man, under law; and there, in 
obedience to the law, he offered " for his acceptance." The question 
was. Could man bring an offering so acceptable as to satisfy God? Jesus 
as man did bring such an offering. He offered himself, and his offering 
was accepted. Even with our poor thoughts of what Jesus was to the 
Father, it seems wondrous that he, the Blessed One, should ever have 
thus offered " for* his acceptance." But this was only one of the many 
steps of humiliation which he took, as our representative, " for us." 
[pp. 50-52] ... 

3. The third point peculiar to the burnt offering was, that a life 
was offered on the altar. " He shall kill the bullock before the Lord, 



OFFERING, MEAT 361 

and sprinkle the blood upon the altar." In this particular the burnt 
offering stands distinguished from the meat offering, which in other 
respects it closely resembles. In the meat offering, however, the offering 
was " corn, oil, and frankincense." Here the offering is a life. 

The right understanding of the precise import of this particular 
will help us to the distinct character of the burnt offering. Life was 
that part in creation which from the beginning God claimed as his. As 
such, — as being his claim on his creatures, — it stands as an emblem 
for what we owe him. What we ow;e to God is our duty to him. And 
this, I doubt not, is the thought here intended. Of course, the offering 
here, as elsewhere, is the body of Jesus, that body which he took, and 
then gave for us; but in giving God a life, in contradistinction to offer- 
ing him corn or frankincense, the peculiar thought is the fulfilment of 
the first table of the decalogue. Thus the life yielded is man's duty to 
God, and man here is seen perfectly giving it. Am I asked what man 
ever thus offered? I answer. None but one, "the man Christ Jesus." 
He alone of all the sons of Adam in perfectness accomplished all man's 
duty to Godward; he in his own blessed and perfect righteousness met 
every claim God could make upon him. Again, I say, he did it " for 
us," and we are " accepted in him." 

4. The fourth and last feature peculiar to the burnt offering is, that 
it was wholly burnt on the altar. " The priest shall burn all upon the 
altar, to be a burnt sacrifice unto the Lord." In this particular the burnt 
offering differed from the meat and peace offerings in which a part only 
was burnt with fire; nor did it differ less from those offerings for sin 
which, though wholly burnt, were not burnt upon the altar. 

The import of this distinction is manifest, and in exact keeping 
with the character of the offering. Man's duty to God is not the giving 
up of one faculty, but the entire surrender of all. So Christ sums up 
the first commandment, — all the mind, all the soul, all the affections. 
" Thou Shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy 
soul, and with all thy mind." I cannot doubt that the type refers to 
this in speaking so particularly of the parts of the burnt offering; for 
"the head," "the fat," "the legs," "the inwards," are all distinctly 
enumerated. "The head" is the well-known emblem of the thoughts; 
"the legs" the emblem of the walk; and "the inwards" the constant 
and familiar symbol of the feelings and affections of the heart. The 
meaning of " the fat " may not be quite so obvious, though here also 
Scripture helps us to the solution. It represents the energy not of one 
limb or faculty, but the general health and vigor of the whole. In 
Jesus these were all surrendered, and all without spot or blemish. Had 
there been but one thought in the mind of Jesus which was not per- 
fectly given to God; had there been but one affection in the heart of 
Jesus which was not yielded to his Father's will; had there been one 
step in the walk of Jesus which was not taken for God, but for his 
own pleasure, — then he could not have offered himself or been accepted 
as "a whole burnt offering to Jehovah." But Jesus gave up all: he 
reserved nothing. All was burnt, all consumed upon the altar, [pp. 53- 
56] — " The Law of the Offerings,'" Andrew Jukes, pp. 47-56, 17th edition. 

Oflfering, Meat, Distinctive Character of. — Five points here at 
once present themselves, which bring out what is distinctive in this 
offering. The apprehension of these will enable us to see the particular 
relation which Jesus filled for man as meat offering. 

1. The first point is that the meat offering was a sweet savor. In 
this particular it stands in contrast to the sin offering, but in exact 
accordance with the burnt offering, [p. 67] . . . 



362 OFFERING, PEACE 

2. The second point in which the meat offering differed from the 
others, is seen in the materials of which it was composed. These were 
"flour, oil, and frankincense;" there is no giving up of life here. It is 
in this particular, especially, that the meat offering differs from the 
burnt offering, [p. 68] . . . 

The import of this difference between the burnt and meat offerings 
may now be surely and easily gathered. Life is that which from the 
beginning God claimed as his part in creation; as an emblem, therefore, 
it represents what the creature owes to God. Corn, the fruit of the 
earth, on the other hand, is man's part in creation; as such, it stands 
the emblem of man's claim, or of what we owe to man. What we owe 
to God or to man is respectively our duty to either. Thus in the burnt 
offering the surrender of life to God represents the fulfilment of man's 
duty to God; man yielding to God his portion to satisfy all his claim. 
In the meat offering the gift of corn and oil represents the fulfilment 
of man's duty to his neighbor; man in his offering surrendering himself 
to God, but doing so that he may give to man his portion. Thus the 
burnt offering is the perfect fulfilment of the laws of the first table; 
the meat offering the perfect fulfilment of the second. Of course, in 
both cases the offering is but one, — that offering is " the body " of 
Jesus; but that body is seen offered in different aspects: here in the 
meat offering as fulfilling man's duty to man. The one case is man 
satisfying God, giving him his portion, and receiving testimony that it 
is acceptable. The other is man satisfying his neighbor, giving man his 
portion as an offering to the Lord. [pp. 69, 70] — " The Law of the Offer- 
ings,'" Andrew Juices, pp. 67-70, 17th edition. London: James Nisbei 
d Co. 

Offering, Peace, Distinctive Character of. — In its contrast to the 
other offerings, it may be sufficient to enumerate two chief points: (1) 
It was a sweet savor offering; and, (2) The offerer, God, and the priest 
were fed by it. In the former of these particulars, it differed from the 
sin offerings; in the latter, it differed from all others. 

1. It was a " sweet savor " offering. On the import of this distinc- 
tion I need here say little, since we have already more than once ex- 
amined it. Suffice it to say that here, as in the burnt and meat offerings, 
we are presented with a view of the offering, not as offered with any 
reference to sin, but rather as showing man giving to God that which 
is sweet and pleasant to him. 

But the burnt offering and meat offering were both " sweet savors." 
This particular, therefore, though distinguishing the peace offering from 
the sin offerings, gives us nothing by which we may distinguish it from 
the other sweet-savor offerings. I pass on, therefore, to the next par- 
ticular, in which the peace offering very distinctly differs from the 
burnt and meat offerings. 

2. The second point in which the peace offering differed from others 
was, that in it the offerer, the priest, and God, all fed together. This 
was the case in no offering but the peace offering. In this they had 
something in common. Here each had a part. They held communion 
in feeding on the same offering. 

We have first the offerer's part; then God's part; then the priest's 
part; and included in this last, though separately mentioned, the part 
which was fed upon by the priest's children. 

And what a view does this give of the efficacy of the offering! How 
does it magnify " the unsearchable riches of Christ "! God, man, and the 
priest, all fed together, all finding satisfaction in the offering. God first 
has his part and is satisfied, for he declares it to be very good. " It is 
an offering made by fire of a sweet savor unto the Lord." Man (in 



OFFERING, SIN . 363 

Christ) as offerer has his part, and is permitted to share this offering 
with his friends. And the priest, that is, Christ in his official character, 
is satisfied also, and his children are satisfied with him. What a pic- 
ture is here presented to us! The offerer feasts with God, with his 
priest, and with the priest's children. — " The Law of the Offerings" 
Andrew Jukes, pp. 98-100, 17th edition. London: James Nishet & Co. 

Offering, Six, Distixctive Character of. — The burnt offering, the 
meat offering, and the peace offering, much as they differed, were yet 
alike in this, that in each of them the offering was the presentation of 
something which was sweet to Jehovah, an oblation to satisfy his holy 
requirements, and in the acceptance of which he found grateful satis- 
faction. But here, in the sin and trespass offerings, we read of sin in 
connection with the offering. Here is confessed sin, judged sin, sin 
requiring sacrifice and blood-shedding, yet sin atoned for, blotted out, 
and pardoned. 

It might perhaps be thought that this view of the offering, as 
leading to the knowledge and discovery of sin, might be less blessed, 
less full of joy and consolation, than those views of the offering on 
which we have already meditated. Such might be the case were we 
other than what we are, and were the sin offering other than God has 
provided. Were we sinless beings who knew no sin, this view of the 
offering might not be needed by us, save as revealing the grace of Him, 
who, though the Holy One, could be " just and yet a justifier." But to 
us, who, knowing ourselves to be sinners, and as such subject to God's 
just wrath and judgment, have yet believed in Him " who was made a 
curse for us," this view of the offering is perhaps of all most comfort- 
ing. The sin offering shows that sin has been judged, and that therefore 
the sense of sin, if we believe, need not shake our sense of safety. Sin 
is indeed here pre-eminently shown to be exceeding sinful, exceeding 
hateful, exceeding evil before God: yet it is also shown to have been 
perfectly met by sacrifice, perfectly borne, perfectly judged, perfectly 
atoned for. 

And the fact is, that the view of Christ as sin offering is sooner 
apprehended than those prefigured in the burnt and meat offerings. 
Experience abundantly testifies this. As in the type the sin offerings, 
though last in order of institution, were invariably the first in order 
of application; so in the experience of saints, Christ is first apprehended 
as the sin offering. Long before there is any intelligence of all the 
details of Christ's perfect work, as fulfilling all righteousness as man, 
and being accepted of God as a sweet-smelling savor, — long before there 
is any thought of his offering as that wherein God takes delight and 
finds satisfaction, the weak Christian sees Christ as sin-bearer, and his 
offering as a sacrifice for sin. And though, as the type will show us, 
this view may be very indistinct, confused, or partial; and though it 
may be apprehended by different believers with an immense difference 
as to the measure of discernment and intelligence, yet in some form 
or other it is, I may say invariably, the first view of Christ's offering 
apprehended by the Christian, [pp. 129-131] . . . 

The sin offering in contrast with the other offerings — three par- 
ticulars will give us all the outlines: (1) First, it was, though without 
blemish, not of a sweet savor. Then (2) it was burnt, not on the altar 
in the tabernacle, but on the bare earth without the camp. In these two 
particulars the sin offering was in contrast to the burnt offering. Lastly, 
(3) it was an offering for sin, and this as distinct from an offering! for 
trespass. In this, as I need hardly observe, it stands contrasted partic- 
ularly with the trespass offering. 



364 OFFERING, SIN 

1. First, the sin offering, though without spot or blemish, was yet not 
a sweet-savor offering. I have already dwelt more than once on what 
is implied in a " sweet savor." I need not, therefore, here do more than 
refer to it, to show how Jesus, the spotless one, could be " not a sweet 
savor." 

The distinction is this: the sweet-savor offerings were for accept- 
ance; the others for expiation. In the first class, sin is not seen at all; 
it is simply the faithful Israelite satisfying Jehovah. In the sin offer- 
ings it is just the reverse; it is an offering charged with the sin of the 
offerer. In the burnt offering and other sweet-savor offerings, the offerer 
came as a worshiper, to give in his offering, which represented himself, 
something sweet and pleasant to Jehovah. In the sin and trespass offer- 
ings, which were not of a sweet savor, the offerer came as a convicted 
sinner, to receive in his offering, which represented himself, the judg- 
ment due to his sin or trespass. In the sin offerings, as in the burnt 
offerings, Christ is offerer: but here he is seen standing for us under 
the imputation of sin. For though in himself without sin, " the Holy 
One," yet he became our substitute, confessed our sins as his sins, and 
bore their penalty, [pp. 133, 134] . . . 

2. The sin offering was burnt without the camp. The other offer- 
ings were, without exception, burnt on the altar in the tabernacle. Here 
" the sSkin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his 
legs, his inwards, etc., even the whole bullock shall he carry without 
the camp, . . . and burn him on the wood with fire." The import of 
this we have more than once noticed in passing. It testified how com- 
pletely the offering was identified with the sin it suffered for; so com- 
pletely identified that it was itself looked at as sin, and as such cast 
out of the camp into the wilderness. A part indeed, " the fat," was burnt 
on the altar, to show that the offering, though made a sin-bearer, was 
in itself perfect. But the body of the victim, " even the whole bullock," 
was cast forth without the camp. " Wherefore Jesus also, that he might 
sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate." He 
was cast out as one who was unfit for Jerusalem, was unworthy a place 
in the city of God. [pp. 137, 138] . . . 

3. The third peculiarity we may note in the sin offering is, that it 
was an offering for sin, not an offering for trespass. This distinction, 
like all the rest which God has recorded, is full of instruction and of 
comfort to our souls. It is as definite, too, as any of the other differences 
which we have dwelt upon. The want of apprehension respecting it only 
arises from our so little knowing either what man is or what God is. 
With our shortsightedness, our inability to see beyond the surface, we 
naturally look at what man does rather than at what he is; and while 
we are willing to allow that he does evil, we perhaps scarcely think 
that he is evil. But God judges what we are as well as what we do; 
our sin, the sin in us, as much as our trespasses. In his sight sin in us, 
our evil nature, is as clearly seen as our trespasses, which are but the 
fruit of that nature. He needs not wait to see the fruit put forth. He 
knows the root is evil, and so will be the buddings. 

Now the distinction between the sin and trespass offerings is just 
this, — the one is for sin in our nature, the other for the fruits of it. 
And a careful examination of the particulars of the offerings is all that 
is needed to make this manifest. Thus in the sin offering no particular 
act of sin is mentioned, but a certain person is seen standing confessedly 
as a sinner; in the trespass offering certain acts are enumerated, and the 
person never appears; in the sin offering I see a person who needs 
atonement, offering an oblation for himself as a sinner; in the trespass 



OFFERING, TRESPASS 365 

offering I see certain acts which need atonement, and the offering offered 
for these particular offenses, [pp. 140, 141] — " The Law of the Offerings,'' 
Andrew Jukes, pp. 129-141, 17th edition. London: James Nishet d Co. 

Offering, Trespass, Distinctive Character or. — As to the distinc- 
tive character of this offering, four particulars may at once he noted, 
the first having reference to the broad distinction between the trespass 
offerings and the whole class of sweet-savor offerings; the next bearing 
on the general distinction between the offerings not of a sweet savor, 
namely, the sin and trespass offerings: the other two are more definite, 
and have to do with certain details connected with and flowing from the 
distinction between the nature of sin and trespass, and their atonement. 

1. On the first particular I need not here enter, for the distinction 
Tjetween what was and what was not of a sweet savor has so often been 
(dwjeit Tipon. I therefore merely notice the fact that the trespass offering 
was not a sweet savor. Christ is seen here suffering for sins : the view 
(Df liis work in the trespass offering is expiatory. 

2. The next particular, too, we have already considered, namely, 
that this offering was a trespass offering, as distinct from a sin offering, 
[pp. 164, 165] . . . 

In every case of trespass, wrong was done; there was an act of 
evil by which another was injured. And the offering for this act, the 
trespass offering (in this a contrast to the sin offering) was offered by 
the offerer, not because he was, but because he had done, evil. Accord- 
ingly, in the trespass offering we never get sight of any particular 
person as a siniu^j; the act of wrong is the point noticed and dwelt 
upon. tp. 1663 .. .. .. 

In the trespass offering, besides the life laid down, the value of the 
trespass^ according to the priest's valuation of it, was paid in shekels 
of the sanctuary, to the injured party. Then, in addition to this, a fifth 
part more, in shekels also, was added to the sum just spoken of, which, 
togetlier with the amount of the original wrong or trespass, was paid 
by the trespasser to the person trespassed against. These particulars, 
respecting the payment of money in connection with the offering, are 
not only very definite, but very remarkable. It may be well, therefore, 
before we consider them separately, to note how distinctly all this dif- 
fered from the sin offering. 

In the sin offering we see nothing of money: there was no estima- 
tion by tne priest, nor any fifth part added. Indeed, from the nature 
of the case, there could be neither of these, for they depend entirely on 
the nature of trespass. In the sin offering the offerer was a sinner: and 
his sin was met and judged in the victim, A perfect victim bore the 
penalty; a sinless one was judged for sin. In all this the one thought 
presented to us is sin receiving its rightful wages. We see due judg- 
ment inflicted on the sinner's substitute; and this having been in- 
flicted, justice is satisfied. In the trespass offering, with the ex- 
ception of " trespass " instead of " sin," we have all this precisely the 
same as in the sin offering. The victim's life is given for trespass: 
judgment is infiicted, and so far justice is satisfied. But in the trespass 
offering there is more than this, — arising, as we shall see, out of the 
nature of trespass, — the original wrong or evil is remedied; and fur- 
ther, a fifth part is added to it. [pp. 169, 170] ... 

3. In the trespass offering we get restitution, full restitution, for 
the original wrong. The amount of the injury, according to the priest's 
valuation of it, is paid in shekels of the sanctuary to the injured person. 
The thought here is not that trespass is punished, but that the injured 



366 OFFERINGS, LAW OF 

party is repaid the wrong. The payment was in shekels: these " shekels 
of the sanctuary " were the appointed standard by which God's rights 
were measured; as it is said, " And all thy estimation shall be according 
to the shekel of the sanctuary." Thus they represent the truest measure, 
God's standard by which he weighs all things. By this standard the 
trespass is weighed, and then the value paid to the injured person. 

And God and man, though wronged by trespass, each receive as 
much again from man in Christ through the trespass offering. God was 
injured by trespass in his holy things, his rights unpaid, his claim 
slighted; for man was ofttimes a robber, taking for himself the fat 
or life, God's claim in the offerings. Thus, if I may so say, God through 
man was a loser; but at the hands of Christ the loss has been repaid; 
and whatever was lost through man in the first Adam, has been made 
up to the full in the second Adam. Whether honor, service, worship, 
or obedience, whatever God could claim, whatever man could rob him 
of, all this has he received again from man in Christ, " according to the 
priest's estimation in shekels of the sanctuary." [pp. 172, 173] . . . 

4. But this is not all. Not only is the original wrong paid, but a 
fifth part more is paid with it in the trespass offering. Not only is the 
original claim, of which God and man had been wronged, satisfied, but 
something more, " a fifth," is added with it. [p. 173] . . . 

Accordingly, the payment of " a fifth " henceforward, wherever we 
meet with it in Scripture, is the acknowledgment that the person paying 
it has lost and forfeited that whereof " the fifth " was offered. It is a 
witness not only that the sum or thing yielded up, has been yielded of 
necessity, as a debt, not as a free gift, but that the whole of that whereof 
the fifth was paid, was the right and property of him to whom its 
" fifth " was rendered. Thus its import in the trespass offering seals 
the character of the offering, testifying that what was given was indeed 
a debt, and not a free gift. 

But while this was the import of giving " the fifth part," yet by the 
addition of this fifth the injured party became in truth a gainer. So 
far from losing by trespass, he received more back again; and this is 
what we have now to consider. Wonderful indeed are the ways of God; 
how unsearchable are his counsels and wisdom! Who would have 
thought that from the entrance of trespass, both God and man should in 
the end be gainers? But so it is. From man in Christ both God and 
man have received back more than they were robbed of. All things are 
indeed of God; yet it is from man in Christ, and this in consequence of 
trespass, that God, according to his wondrous purpose, receives back 
more than that of which sin had robbed him. In this sense, " where sin 
abounded," yea, and because sin abounded, " grace did more abound." 
[pp. 175, 176]—" The Law of the Offerings,'' Andrew Jukes, pp. 164-176, 
17th edition. London: James Nisdet & Co. 

Offerings, Law of. — Such is " the law of the offerings." It gives 
but one view of Christ: yet how much is involved in it, both as to our 
walk and standing. Do we not need this truth? Surely if ever there 
was a time when the truths connected with Christ's sacrifice were 
needed, that time is the present. As in the days of Christ, so now God's 
truth is used as the prop of error. Just as then the law, which was given 
to prove man's sinfulness, was used by Pharisees to exalt man's right- 
eousness; so now the gospel, which was given to lead us to another 
world, is being used to make this world a more sure abiding place. 

I speak what is notorious: it is the boast of our age, that Chris- 
tianity is doing what it never did before. It is giving temperance to the 
world and peace to thQ nations, it is vindicating the liberty of the slave; 



OLD TESTAMENT, STRUCTURE OP 367 

in a word, it is making for man a better home, a safer resting-place, on 
this side the grave. And all the while the world is still the world, and 
the slave still, as before, the slave of lust. 

Time was when Christians gave up the world. They now can mend 
it: they need not leave it. Oh, cunning device of the evil one, too 
easily followed by a deluded age! God's truth now, instead of laying 
man in his grave with the certain hope of a resurrection morning, is 
used on all hands, misused I should say, to perfect man in the flesh, 
almost to deify him; used to prop "the things which must be shaken," 
instead of leading us to those "which cannot be moved;" used to give 
an inheritance on this side death instead of in the glory which shall be 
revealed. 

Oh, how does the Offering judge all this! It speaks of sacrifice, even 
to the cross. It tells us that, as one with Christ, our portion in him 
must yet be his portion. What had he here? He suffered under Pontius 
Pilate; he was crucified, dead, and buried; he rose again the third day; 
he ascended up into heaven; he sitteth at the right hand of God; he shall 
come again to judge the quick and dead. What had he here? Nothing. 
He took not as his home a world unpurged by fire, a creation still under 
the curse. He passed through it as a rejected pilgrim. We, too, if we 
would be like him, must do so still. As Luther said, " Our spouse is a 
bloody husband to us." He will not let us have this world till he has 
it. His day is at hand: for that day he waits. Let us be content, "yet 
a little while," to wait with him. And while many are anticipating 
his kingdom, in a kingdom without his presence, and without his saints, 
let us look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world 
to come. — " The Law of the Ofterings" Andrew Jukes, pp. 205-207, 17th 
edition. London: Jamies Nishet d Co. 

Old Testament, Structure or. — There are two methods by which 
we can proceed in investigating the organic structure of the Old Tes- 
tament. We must take our departure either from the beginning or the 
end. These are the two points from which all the lines of progress 
diverge, or in which they meet in every development or growth, 
[p. 7] . . . 

If, then, the structure of the Old Testament has been read aright, 
as estimated from the point of its beginning and its gradual develop- 
ment from that onward, it consists of four parts; viz., 

1. The Pentateuch, or law of Moses, the basis of the whole. 

2. Its providential expansion and application to the national life 
in the historical books. 

3. Its subjective expansion and appropriation to individual life 
in the poetical books. 

4. Its objective expansion and enforcement in the prophetical books. 
The other mode above suggested of investigating the structure of 

the Old Testament requires us to survey it from its end, which is Christ, 
for whose coming and salvation it is a preparation. This brings every- 
thing into review under a somewhat different aspect. It will yield sub- 
stantially the same division that has already been arrived at by the 
contrary process, and thus lends it additional confirmation, since it 
serves to show that this is not a fanciful or arbitrary partition, but one 
grounded in the nature of the Sacred Volume. At the same time it is 
attended with three striking and important advantages: 

1. The historical, poetical, and prophetical books, which have hith- 
erto been considered as separate lines of development, springing, it is 
true, from a common root, yet pursuing each its own independent 
course, are by this second method exhibited in that close relationship 



368 OLD TESTAMENT, UNITY OF 

and interdependence which really subsists between them, and in their 
convergence to one common center and end. 

2. It makes Christ the prominent figure, and adjusts every part of 
the Old Testament in its true relation to him. He thus becomes in the 
classification and structural arrangement, what he is in actual fact, — 
the end of the whole, the controlling, forming principle of all, so that 
the meaning of every part is to be estimated from its relation to him, 
and is only then apprehended as it should be when that relation becomes 
known. 

3. This will give unity to the study of the entire Scriptures. Every- 
thing in the Old Testament tends to Christ and is to be estimated from 
him. Everything in the New Testament unfolds from Christ and is 
likewise to be estimated from him. In fact, this method pursued in 
other fields will give unity and consistency to all knowledge by making 
Christ the sum and center of the whole, of whom, and through whom, 
and to whom are all things. 

In the first method the Old Testament was regarded simply as a 
divine scheme of training. It must now be regarded as a scheme of 
training directed to one definite end, the coming of Christ. 

It is to be noted that the Old Testament, though preparatory for 
Christ and predictive of him everywhere, is not predictive of him in the 
same manner nor in equal measure throughout. Types and prophecies 
are accumulated at particular epochs in great numbers and of a strik- 
ing character. And then, as if in order that these lessons might be 
fully learned before the attention was diverted by the impartation of 
others, an interval is allowed to elapse in which predictions, whether 
implicit or explicit, are comparatively few and unimportant. Then Ian- 
other brilliant epoch follows, succeeded by a fresh decline; periods, they 
may be called, of activity and of repose, of instruction on the part of 
God, followed by periods of comprehension and appropriation on the 
part of the people. 

These periods of marked predictive character are never mere repe- 
titions of those which preceded them. Each has its own distinctive 
nature and quality. It emphasizes particular aspects and gives promi- 
nence to certain characteristics of the coming Redeemer and the ulti- 
mate salvation; but others are necessarily neglected altogether or left 
in comparative obscurity, and if these are to be brought distinctly to 
view, a new period is necessary to represent them. Thus one period 
serves as the complement of another, and all must be combined in order 
to gain a complete notion of the preparation for Christ effected by the 
Old Testament, or of that exhibition of Messiah and his work which it 
was deemed requisite to make prior to his appearing, [p. 9-11] • — " The 
Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch,'' William Henry Green, D. D., 
LL. D., pp. 7-11. New York: Charles Scridner's Sons, 1895. 

Old Testament, Unity of. — The Old Testament is a product of the 
Spirit of God, wrought out through the instrumentality of many human 
agents, who were all inspired by him, directed by him, and adapted by 
him to the accomplishment of his own fixed end. Here is that unity 
in multiplicity, that singleness of aim with diversity of operations, that 
binding together of separate activities under one superior and con- 
trolling infiuence, which guides all to the accomplishment of a prede- 
termined purpose, and allots to each its particular function in reference 
to it, which is the very conception of a well-arranged organism. There 
is a divine reason why every part is what it is and where it is; why 
God spake unto the fathers at precisely those sundry times and in just 
those divers portions, in which he actually revealed his will. And 



OltD TESTAMENT, UNITY OF 369 

though this may not in every instance be ascertainable by us, yet careful 
and reverent study will disclose it not only in its general outlines, but 
also in a multitude of its minor details; and will show that the trans- 
positions and alterations, which have been proposed as improvements, 
are dislocations and disfigurements, which mar and deface the well- 
proportioned whole. 

In looking for the evidences of an organic structure in the Scrip- 
tures, according to which all its parts are disposed in harmonious unity, 
and each part stands in a definite and intelligible relation to every 
other, as well as to the grand design of the whole, it will be necessary 
to group and classify the particulars, or the student will lose himself 
in the multiplicity of details, and never rise to any clear conception of 
the whole. Every fact, every institution, every person, every doctrine, 
every utterance of the Bible, has its place and its function in the general 
plan. And the evidence of the correctness of any scheme proposed as 
the plan of the Scriptures will lie mainly in its harmonizing throughout 
with all these details, giving a rational and satisfactory account of the 
purpose and design of each and assigning to all their just place and 
relations. But if one were to occupy himself with these details in the 
first instance, he would be distracted and confused by their multitude, 
without the possibility of arriving thus at any clear or satisfactory 
result. 

The first important aid in the process of grouping or classification 
is afforded by the separate books of which the Scriptures are composed. 
These are not arbitrary or fortuitous divisions of the sacred text; but 
their form, dimensions, and contents have been divinely determined. 
Each represents the special task allotted to one particular organ of the 
Holy Spirit, either the entire function assigned to him in the general 
plan, or, in the case where the same inspired penman wrote more than 
one book of different characters and belonging to different classes, his 
function in one given sphere or direction. Thus the books of Isaiah, 
Ezekiel, and Malachi exhibit to us that part in the plan of divine reve- 
lation which each of those distinguished servants of God was commis- 
sioned to perform. The book of Psalms represents the task allotted to 
David and the other inspired writers of song in the instruction land 
edification of the people of God. The books of Moses may be said to 
have led the way in every branch of sacred composition, in history 
(Genesis, in legislation (Leviticus), in oratorical and prophetic dis- 
course (Deuteronomy), in poetry (Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 32, 33), 
and they severally set forth what he was engaged to accomplish in 
each of these different directions. The books of Scripture thus having 
each an individual character and this stamped with divine authority 
as an element of fitness for their particular place and function, must 
be regarded as organic parts of the whole. 

The next step in our inquiry is to classify and arrange the books 
themselves. Every distribution is not a true classification, as a me- 
chanical division of an animal body is not a dissection, and every classi- 
fication will not exhibit the organic structure of which we are in quest. 
The books of the Bible may be variously divided with respect to matters 
merely extraneous and contingent, and which stand in no relation to 
the true principle of its construction. 

Thus, for example, the current division of the Hebrew Bible is 
into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the K'thubhim or Hagi- 
ographa. This distribution rests upon the official standing of the 
writers. The writings of Moses, the great lawgiver and mediator of 
God's covenant with Israel, whose position in the theocracy was alto- 
gether unique, stand first. Then follow the writings of the prophets, 
24 



370 OLD TESTAMENT, UNITY OF 

that is to say, of those invested with the prophetical office. Some of 
these writings, the so-called former prophets — Joshua, Judges, Samuel, 
and Kings — are historical; the others are prophetical, viz., those de- 
nominated the latter prophets — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Bzekiel, and the 
twelve minor prophets so called, not as though of inferior authority, 
but solely because of the brevity of their books. Their position in this 
second division of the canon is due, not to the nature of their contents, 
but to the fact that their writers were prophets in the strict and 
official sense. Last of all those books occupy the third place which 
were written by inspired men who were not In the technical or official 
sense prophets. Thus the writings of David and Solomon, though in- 
spired as truly as those of the prophets, are assigned to the third 
division of the canon, because their authors were not prophets but 
kings. So, too, the book of Daniel belongs in this third division, be- 
cause its author, though possessing the gift of prophecy in an eminent 
degree, and uttering prophecies of the most remarkable character, 
and hence called a prophet (Matt. 24: 15) in the same general sense 
as David is in Acts 2: 30, nevertheless did not exercise the prophetic 
office. He was not engaged in laboring with the people for their spir- 
itual good as his contemporary and fellow captive Ezekiel. He had an 
entirely different office to perform on their behalf in the distinguished 
position which he occupied at the court of Babylon and then of Persia. 
The books of Chronicles cover the same period of the history as 2 Samuel 
and Kings, but the assignment of the former to the third division, and 
of the latter to the second, assures us that Samuel and Kings were 
written by prophets, while the author of Chronicles, though writing 
•under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was not officially 
a prophet. 

As classified in our present Hebrew Bibles, which follow the or- 
der given in the Talmud, this principle of arrangement is in one 
instance obviously departed from; the Lamentations of Jeremiah 
stands in the Hagiographa, though as the production of a prophet it 
ought to be included in the second division of the canon, and there 
is good reason to believe that this was its original position. Two 
modes of enumerating the sacred books were in familiar use in ancient 
times, as appears from the catalogues which have been preserved to us. 
The two books of Samuel were uniformly counted one: so the two 
books of Kings and the two of Chronicles: so also Ezra and Nehemiah: 
so likewise the Minor Prophets were counted one book. Then, according 
to one mode of enumeration, Ruth was attached to Judges as forming 
together one book, and Lamentations was regarded as a part of the 
book of Jeremiah: thus the entire number of the books of the Old Tes- 
tament was twenty-two. In the other mode Ruth and Lamentations 
were reckoned separate books, and the total was twenty-four. Now the 
earliest enumerations that we have from Jewish or Christian sources 
are by Josephus and Origen, who both give the number as twenty-two: 
and as this is the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, while 
twenty-four is the number in the Greek alphabet, the former may 
naturally be supposed to have been adopted by the Jews in the first 
instance. From this it would appear that Lamentations was originally 
annexed to the book of Jeremiah and of course placed in the same divi- 
sion of the canon. Subsequently, for liturgical or other purposes, Ruth 
and Lamentations were removed to the third division of the canon and 
included among the five small books now classed together as Megilloth 
or Rolls, which follow immediately after Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. — 
" The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch,'' William Henry Green, D. D., 
LL. D., pp. 2-7. New York: Charles 8crif)ner's Sons, 1895. 



OLD TESTAMENT, REJUVENATION OF 371 

Old Testament, Kingdom of Heaven in. — Concerning this " king- 
dom of heaven," which was the great message of John, and the great 
work of Christ himself, we may here say, that it is the whole Old 
Testament sublimated, and the whole New Testament realized. The 
idea of it did not lie hidden in the Old, to be opened up in the New 
Testament, as did the mystery of its realization. But this rule of 
heaven and kingship of Jehovah was the very substance of the Old 
Testament; the object of the calling and mission of Israel; the meaning 
of all its ordinances, whether civil or religious; the underlying idea of 
all its institutions. It explained alike the history of the people, the 
dealings of God with them, and the prospects opened up by the prophets. 
Without it the Old Testament could not be understood; it gave perpe- 
tuity to its teaching, and dignity to its representations. This consti- 
tuted alike the real contrast between Israel and the nations of antiquity, 
and Israel's real title to distinction. Thus the whole Old Testament 
was the preparatory presentation of the rule of heaven and of the king- 
ship of its Lord. — " The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" Rev. 
Alfred Edersheim, M. A. Oxon., D. D., Ph. D., Vol. I, p. 265. New York: 
Longmans, Green & Co., 1896. 

Old Testament, Rejuvenation of. — Our old Old Testament of the 
beginning of this century has now become a new Old Testament. This 
rejuvenation of the old book is due to the large progress made in explo- 
rations, discoveries, and decipherment of antiquities during the present 
century, and pre-eminently during the last half of it. Almost every 
Bible land has been laid under tribute to this cause, and some of them 
have poured into our archeological coffers more than we can as yet 
measure or interpret. Private and public expeditions are at work today 
in several of these Oriental lands, and they promise to yield fruit as 
fast as we can care for it. Remains of all the principal peoples men- 
tioned in the Old Testament now decorate the cases of our museums, and 
tons of new material are being gathered in at the end of every season. 
This work cannot be too strongly supported. Every additional fact 
added to our knowledge simply elucidates some hitherto unexplained 
difficulty, and every spade plunged into an Oriental mound is merely 
a step toward the discovery of some new fact. 

The scope of the results of these discoveries is immeasurable. They 
touch almost every part of the Old Testament. . . . The largest contri- 
bution is that made to the historical setting of the children of Israel 
in the different periods of their history. Archeology comes in for no 
small share in the permanent good derived from this source. A new 
and definite location of events formerly assigned to semioblivion gives 
additional vividness to the narrative. The determination of the exact 
time of the occurrence of events has also added interest to many of the 
facts in the Old Testament. But there is no more fascinating depart- 
ment of new information than that pertaining to the ethnology of early 
Oriental peoples. There are few names of peoples now remaining in the 
Old Testament about whom we have not secured some new facts. The 
religions, too, of the contemporaneous nations are better known than 
they were a half-century ago. The meanings of some words in the Old 
Testament have assumed a new importance since the opening of the 
magical Babylonian-Assyrian cuneiform tongue, a half-sister to the 
Hebrew. This larger meaning for the words of the Old Testament as- 
sures us of a better understanding of the original Hebrew, and a more 
expressive and sympathetic meaning for the words penned by the writers 
of the Old Testament. 

In surveying the. whole sweep of discoveries in the historical line, 



372 OPHm, LOCATION OP 

one may well be amazed at the galaxy of characters now drawn up to 
view. Beginning back at the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, we find evi- 
dence of the existence of the leader, Chedorlaomer, of the great Elamite 
campaign against the cities of the plain. The probabilities of a Hyksos 
domination in Egypt when Abram and Joseph reached the Nile land are 
increasing with each new Egyptian discovery touching this period. 
The possession at Gizeh Museum of the mummy of the Pharaoh of the 
oppression, Rameses II, and a tablet of the time of Meneptah II, bearing 
the name " Israel," add great vividness to the bondage of Israel in 
Egypt. Portraits of some of the Canaanitish peoples show us the kind 
of soldiers that disputed with Joshua the occupation of the Promised 
Land. Shishak's portrait of his captives from Canaan bears evidence on 
the face of it of the verity of the king's record of that event. The 
Moabite Stone tells us that Mesha of Moab (2 Kings 3:4) was no less 
a king than represented by the compiler of Kings. Shalmaneser IFs 
own record bears testimony to the existence of Ahab, of Benhadad, and 
Hazael of Damascus, and of " Jehu son of Omri." Tiglath-pileser III 
has left most valuable documents in which he mentions Azariah (Uz- 
ziah) and Ahaz of Judah, and Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea of Israel, 
and Rezin of Damascus. Sargon II describes his capture of Samaria 
and of Ashdod. Sennacherib's records are full of facts regarding his 
illustrious campaign of 701 b. c, where we find Hezekiah mentioned by 
name, the siege of Lachish pictured on his walls, and the amount of 
tribute paid the invader. Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal both mention 
in their lists of tributaries Manasseh of Judah. The overthrow of Nine- 
veh, pictured in Nahum, is attested by a small inscription of Nabonidus. 
The policy of Nebuchadrezzar, and his administrative ability, are evi- 
dent in his own records. The annals of Nabonidus and of Gyrus picture 
the fall of Babylon and the governmental policy of Cyrus outlined in 
the Old Testament. Belshazzar is seen to be the son, co-regent, of Nab- 
onidus, the last Semitic king of Babylon. The construction of the 
palace of Susa is found to correspond in every important respect to the 
descriptions of the book of Esther. In brief, we now have several new 
and corroborative chapters of history, as one immediate result of the 
decipherment of the new documents dug out of the earth within the last 
half-century. — " The Monuments and the Old Testament, ^^ Ira Maurice 
Price, Ph. D., pp. 291-294. Philadelphia: American Baptist Puhlication 
Society, copyright 1907. 

Ophir, Location or. — These ships go to Ophir, which some have 
thought to be in India, from the fact that the words used for ivory, pea- 
cocks, apes, etc., are South Indian words for the same animals. But 
there was an old coast trade between India and Yemen, and Indian trad- 
ers probably brought to Ophir Indian products, which Solomon's servants 
brought up the Red Sea. Ophir seems clearly to be in Yemen or south- 
ern Arabia; evidently, too, the same place from which the Queen of 
Sheba came; and it is said she came with camels, etc. (1 Kings 10: 2), 
which shows hers was an overland journey, and that the fable of her 
coming from Abyssinia has not grounds of fact to rest on. — " The Bible 
and Modern Discoveries,*' Henry A. Harper, pp. 284, 285, 4th edition.. 
London: Alexander P. Watt, 1891. 

Palestine, History of. Between the Testaments. — The history of 
Palestine [during the period between the Testaments] may be divided 
into six sections, corresponding to the different masters whose sway it 
owned : 

1. The Persians were its nominal masters to 4:he year b. c. 333. 



PANTHEISM 373 

2. Alexander the Great conquered it in that year, and was its mas* 
ter for ten years. 

3. On his death (b. c. 323) it fell, after a long contest, under the 
Ptolemies, or Macedonian kings of Egypt, and so remained for more 
than a hundred years, to b. c. 204. 

4. Then it came under the rule of the Macedonian kingdom of Syria, 
till it was set free by the Maccabees, b. c. 163. 

5. It was ruled by the Maccabees for another century, till 

6. The Roman general Pompey conquered it (b. c. 63) and made 
it tributary to the great mistress of the world. — "A Manual of BiMe 
History," Rev. William G. Blaikie, D. D., LL. D., p. 383*. London: 
T. Nelson d Sons, 1906. 

Pantheism, Not a Religion. — As a matter of historical fact, no 
religion has ever been a pantheism, nor has any pantheism ever 
constituted a religion. The Hindu philosophies, for example — and 
this is especially true of the Vedanta — are just as much and just as 
little a religion as are the speculations of Plato and Plotinus, of Spinoza 
and Jacob Boehme. They are of the nature of after -thoughts, hypotheses 
to account for things as they are, to be studied and criticized as 
products of the logical intellect rather than of the spontaneous and 
inspired reason. Pantheism, in all its forms, is on its ideal side the 
deification of the actual, or the apotheosis of what is, and its ultimate 
truth is the right of all that is, whatever it is, to be. Hence it can 
be quite consistently used to vindicate the most multitudinous polythe- 
ism as well as the grossest cults; but what it cannot do is to take the 
place of any one of the gods or cults it vindicates, and by inviting 
worship become a religion. The impersonal must be personalized be- 
fore thought, which is a subjective activity, can pass into worship, 
which is a reciprocal action, or a process of converse and intercourse 
between living minds. — " The Philosophy of the Christian Religion," 
Andrew Martin Fairbairn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., p. 241. New York: 
George H. Doran GoTnpany, copyright 1902. 

Pantheism, Not Originating Among Semitic People, — While pan- 
theism is native to both Hindu and Greek thought, it has never ap- 
peared as a native product among any Semitic people, the cases which 
do occur having been due to the action of alien thought on special per- 
sons. — Id., p. 219. 

Pantheism, Its View of God. — What view of God does pantheism 
hold? For one thing God is no more nor greater than the sum total of 
things. He is the ground of all things. He is just the essence of 
which mind and matter, with their modes, are the attributes. He did 
not create the world, because essentially he is the world. The world 
is not an effect of which God is the cause, for the same reason that we 
would not say a man is the cause of his own hand or other organ of 
his body. If we think of God as cause of the universe, it is only " as 
the apple is the cause of its red color, as milk is the cause of whiteness, 
sweetness, and liquidness, and not as the father is the cause of the 
child's existence, or even as the sun is the cause of the heat." 

Again: God is not a person, for personality implies limitation, ac- 
cording to pantheism. I know myself only in contrast with something 
not myself. This limitation is essential to the idea of personality, 
urges pantheism, and hence it cannot belong to God. 

This then is the mark of pantheism; it insists that there is but 
one real and abiding existence. In recent philosophy this attempt to 
resolve all diverse things into one is known as Monism. Pantheism 



374 PANTHEISM 

is essentially monistic. It cannot tolerate any form of dualism save 
that of external appearance. Properly understood, the world is one, 
not two or more. All the variety we see in the world is a manifesta- 
tion, in one form or another, of the one eternal substance. By an 
inner law peculiar to itself this substance is capable of this varied ex- 
pression. According to Spinoza, thought is one attribute of substance, 
but personality is not. The universal substance is impersonal. — " Why 
Is Christianity True? " E. Y. MtilUns, D. D., LL. D., pp. 2S, 26. Phila- 
delphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. 

Paiitheism, God Identified with Nature. — Deism conceived God as 
above and apart from the world. He had so made it that it was a 
system complete in itself; its perfection was seen in its ability to do 
its work for an indefinite period independently of him. The proper 
analogy of their relations was the watch and its maker. Without the 
maker, the watch or the world could not be; his was the idea of the 
whole, his the manufacture of the several parts, the calculations, the 
adjustments, and the first construction. Once finished, his wisdom was 
seen in the length of time nature could go on without repairs; and if 
repairs were needed, they could be done only by acts of " intervention " 
or " interference," stopping the whole or some part of the machine 
in order to readjust the mechanism. 

This is very broadly but truly stated; it was the common idea of 
the eighteenth century, carried out by the deist to its logical con- 
clusion — the complete separation or inter-independence of God and 
the world, modified with the help of a more or less infirm logic by 
the apologist, so as to allow Deity some part and interest in the 
world he had made. But each had at root the same idea: such 
complete transcendence, that if God acted in the world at all, his 
action was miraculous, and must be described or discussed in terms 
that implied he was outside the system, and was able to get inside it 
only by some process of interference or suspension of law. 

Pantheism, on the other hand, reversed this process: God was the 
causa immanens, inside nature, not separable from it, the eternal ground 
or substance whose infinite modes are our phenomena of space and 
time. Intelligence was the mode of an infinite attribute which was 
termed " thought," and body the mode of an attribute termed " ex- 
tension." Deity must have an infinite multitude of attributes, but 
these were the only two revealed in experience, and so all we knew. 
But this theory as completely dissolved God in nature as the other 
held him apart from it. He was but the abstract of our concrete ex- 
perience, the hidden energy conceived not as energy but as being, 
which effects or suffers the cycle of changes we call the universe. He 
was not the natura naturata, the begotten or produced nature, our phe- 
nomenal existence, but natura naturans, the begetting or producing 
nature, whose infinite modes were ever forming and ever dissolving. 
He alone was; everything else was but appearance, the swiftly formed 
and dissolved changes of an infinite kaleidoscope. — " The Place of 
Christ in Modern Theology," Andrew Martin Fairhairn, M. A., D. D., 
pp. 414, 415. New York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 1893. 

Pantheism, No Place fob Morality in. — Morality is impossible in 
a pantheistic view of the world. If man is a part of God, and not a 
personal being distinct from God, his acts are God's acts. Sin, as 
Spinoza held, is simply privation, partial existence, this and no more. 
What a man does is necessitated, not freely chosen. The universal 
substance does not admit of free moral choice. All happenings are 
simply the outbreakings of this substance on the surface of things. We 



PAPACY, DEPOSING POWER OF 375 

think we are free, but this is illusion. Human life is like plant life, 
variegated, rich, wonderful, but without responsibility for good or 
evil. A beautiful character deserves no more credit for its moral at- 
tractiveness than a pansy for its varied hues. The history of men 
is like the history of plants, necessitated by an inner principle. There 
is no moral history, but only natural history. Practically carried out, 
pantheism would lead to moral chaos in human society. All restraint 
would be removed. Men would simply drift along the lines of least 
resistance, and we know whither this would lead. 

On the religious side also pantheism fails. Spinoza was influenced 
by a religious motive, but in the end he sacrificed the religious to the 
speculative interest. Pantheism cannot be a religion. Fellowship 
between persons is the core of religion. An impersonal substance can- 
not serve this end. Pantheism borrows from theism the moment it 
admits fellowship or any other of the distinctive blessings of the re- 
ligious life. 

Now the facts of man's moral and religious consciousness are all 
directly opposed to pantheism. We know we are free and responsible. 
Consciousness teaches this. Pantheism is shattered on the rock of con- 
sciousness. We firmly believe that we have fellowship with God. This 
only saves us from despair in our deepest sin and suffering. — " Why 
Is Christianity True? " E. Y. Mullins, D. D., LL. D., pp. 30, 31. Phila- 
delphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. 

Papacy, Deposing Powee of. — When, in 1207, John revolted, he was 
excommunicated, and the whole country was placed under the ban of 
Rome, the throne was declared vacant, and was offered to the king of 
France. Such was the power of Rome in those days that John submitted 
abjectly. . . . The country was handed over to Rome in the presence of 
the papal legate, Randulph, and received back by John on his " prom- 
ising for himself and his successors fealty and a yearly payment of 
1,000 marks." 

The terms of John's oath, taken on 15th May, 1213, are as follows: 

" I, John, by the grace of God, King of England and Lord of Ire- 
land, in order to expiate my sins, from my own free will and the advice 
of my barons, give to the Church of Rome, to Pope Innocent and his suc- 
cessors, the kingdom of England, and all other prerogatives of mV" 
crown. I will hereafter hold them as the Pope's vassal. I will be faith- 
ful to God, to the Church of Rome, to the Pope mqj master, and to his 
successors legitimately elected. I promise to pay him a tribute of 1,000 
marks; to wit, 700 for the kingdom of England, and 300 for the king- 
dom of Ireland." 

The triumph of the Pope was short-lived, for two years later the 
king was forced by his barons, who felt greatly humiliated by the deg- 
radation of this submission, to affix his seal to the famous Magna 
Charta, the great charter of the liberties of England. — " The Bible and 
the British Museum,'' Ada R. Habershon. pp. 122. 123. London: Morgan 
and Scott, 1909. 

Papacy, Historical Notes on Papal Absolutism. — The idea of 
papal absolutism and infallibility, like that of the sinlessness of Mary, 
can be traced to apocryphal origin. It is found first in the second 
century, in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which contain a singular 
system of speculative Ebionism, and represent James of Jerusalem, the 
brother of the Lord, as the bishop of bishops, the center of Christendom, 
and the general vicar of Christ; he is the last arbiter, from whom 
there is no appeal; to him even Peter must give an account of his 
labors, and to him the sermons of Peter were sent for safe keeping. 



376 PAPACY, NOTES ON ABSOLUTISM 

In the Catholic Church the same idea, but transferred to the Bishop 
of Rome, is first clearly expressed in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, 
that huge forgery of papal letters, which appeared in the middle of the 
ninth century, and had for its object the completion of the independence 
of the episcopal hierarchy from the state, and the absolute power of the 
popes, as the legislators and judges of all Christendom. Here the 
most extravagant claims are put into the mouths of the early popes, 
from Clement (91) to Damasus (384), in the barbarous French Latin 
of the Middle Ages, and with such numerous and glaring anachronisms 
as to force the conviction of fraud even upon Roman Catholic scholars. 
One of these sayings is : " The Roman Church remains to the end free 
from stain of heresy." Soon afterward arose, in the same hierarchical 
interest, the legend of the donation of Constantine and his baptism by 
Pope Silvester, interpolations of the writings of the Fathers, especially 
Cyprian and Augustine, and a variety of fictions embodied in the Gesta 
Libera and the Liber PontificaUs, and sanctioned by Gratianus (about 
1150) in his Decretum, or collection of canons, which (as the first part 
of the Corpus Juris Canonici) became the code of laws for the whole 
Western Church, and exerted an extraordinary influence. By this series 
of pious frauds the medieval Papacy, which was the growth of ages, 
was represented to the faith of the church as a primitive institution 
of Christ, clothed with absolute and perpetual authority. 

The popes since Nicholas I (858-867), who exceeded all his pred- 
ecessors in the boldness of his designs, freely used what the spirit of 
a hierarchical, superstitious, and uncritical age furnished them. They 
quoted the fictitious letters of their predecessors as genuine, the 
Sardican canon on appeals as a canon of Nicsea, and the interpolated 
sixth canon of Nicaea, " the Roman Church always had the primacy," 
of which there is not a syllable in the original; and nobody doubted 
them. Papal absolutism was in full vigor from Gregory VII to Boniface 
VIII. Scholastic divines, even Thomas Aquinas, deceived by these 
literary forgeries, began to defend papal absolutism over the whole 
church, and the Councils of Lyons (1274) and of Florence (1439) 
sanctioned it, although the Greeks soon afterward rejected the false 
union based upon such assumption. 

But absolute power, especially of a spiritual kind, is invariably 
intoxicating and demoralizing to any mortal man who possesses it. 
God Almighty alone can bear it, and even he allows freedom to his 
rational creatures. The reminiscence of the monstrous period when the 
Papacy was a football in the hands of bold and dissolute women 
(904-962), or when mere boys, like Benedict IX (1033), polluted the 
papal crown with the filth of unnatural vices, could not be quite forgot- 
ten. The scandal of the papal schism (1378-1409), when two and even 
three rival popes excommunicated and cursed each other, and laid all 
Western Christendom under the ban, excited the moral indignation of 
all good men in Christendom, and called forth, in the beginning of the 
fifteenth century, the three councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basle, 
which loudly demanded a reformation of the church, in the head as well 
as in the members, and asserted the superiority of a council over' the 
Pope. 

The Council of Constance (1414-1418), the most numerous ever 
seen in the West, deposed two popes — John XXIII (the infamous 
Balthasar Cossa, who had been recognized by the majority of the 
church), on the charge of a series of crimes (May 29, 1415), and 
Benedict XIII, as a heretic who sinned against the unity of the church 
(July 26, 1417), and elected a new pope, Martin V (Nov. 11, 1517), 
who had given his adhesion to the council, though after his accession 



PAPACY, NOTES ON ABSOIiUTISM 37? 

to power he found ways and means to defeat its real object, i. e., the 
reformation of the church. 

This council was a complete triumph of the Episcopal system, and 
the papal absolutists and infallibilists are here forced to the logical 
dilemma of either admitting the validity of the council, or invalidating 
the election of Martin V and his successors. Either course is fatal to 
their system. Hence there has never been an authoritative decision on 
the ecumenicity of this council, and the only subterfuge is to say that 
the whole case is an extraordinary exception; but this, after all, in- 
volves the admission that there is a higher power in the church over 
the Papacy. 

The Reformation shook the whole Papacy to its foundation, but 
could not overthrow it. A powerful reaction followed, headed by the 
Jesuits. Their general, Lainez, strongly advocated papal infallibility 
in the Council of Trent, and declared that the church could not err 
only because the Pope could not err. But the council left the question 
undecided, and the Roman catechism ascribes infallibility simply to 
" the Catholic Church," without defining its seat. Bellarmine advocated 
and formularized the doctrine, stating it as an almost general opinion 
that the Pope could not publicly teach a heretical dogma, and as a 
probable and pious opinion that Providence will guard him even 
against private heresy. Yet the same Bellarmine was witness to the 
innumerable blunders of the edition of the Latin Vulgate prepared by 
Sixtus V, corrected by his own hand, and issued by him as the only true 
and authentic text of the Sacred Scriptures, with the stereotyped forms 
of anathema upon all who should venture to change a single word; 
and Bellarmine himself gave the advice that all copies should be called 
in, and a new edition printed with a lying statement in the preface 
making the printers the scapegoats for the errors of the Pope! This 
whole business of the Vulgate is suflBcient to explode papal infallibility; 
for it touches the very source of divine revelation. Other Italian 
divines, like Alphonsus Liguori, and Jesuitical textbooks, unblushingly 
use long-exploded medieval fictions and interpolations as a groundwork 
of papal absolutism and infallibility. 

It is not necessary to follow the progress of the controversy between 
the Episcopal and the papal systems during the seventeenth and eight- 
eenth centuries. It is suflBcient to say that the greatest Catholic divines 
of France and Germany, including Bossuet and Mohler, together with 
many from other countries, down to the eighty-eight protesting bishops 
in the Vatican Council, were anti-infallibilists; and that popular cate- 
chisms of the Roman Church, extensively used till 1870, expressly denied 
the doctrine, which is now set up as an article of faith necessary to 
eternal salvation. — " Rome and the Newest Fashions in Religion,''^ Hon. 
William E. Gladstone, pp. 99-102. New York: Harper d Brothers, 1875. 

Papacy, Builders of, Leo I, Aspiration of. — It was the sublime 
effort of Leo to make the church the guardian of spiritual principles 
and give to it a theocratic character and aim, which links his name 
with the mightiest moral movements of the world; and when I speak 
of the church, I mean the Church of Rome, as presided over by men who 
claimed to be the successors of St. Peter, to whom they assert Christ 
had given the supreme control over all other churches as his vicars on 
the earth. It was the great object of Leo to substantiate this claim, 
and root it in the minds of the newly converted barbarians; and then 
institute laws and measures which should make his authority and that 
of his successors paramount in all spiritual matters, thus centering 
in his see the general oversight of the Christian church in all the coun- 
tries of Europe. 



378 PAPACY, L.EO 1 

It was a theocratic aspiration, one of the grandest that ever entered 
into the mind of a man of genius, yet, as Protestants now look at it, 
a usurpation, — the beginning of a vast system of spiritual tyranny in 
order to control the minds and consciences of men. It took several 
centuries to develop this system, after Leo was dead. With him it was 
not a vulgar greed of power, but an inspiration of genius, — a grand 
idea to make the church which he controlled a benign and potent influ- 
ence on society, and to prevent civilization from being utterly crushed 
out by the victorious Goths and Vandals. It is the success of this 
idea which stamps the church as the great leading power of Medieval 
Ages, — a power alike majestic and venerable, benignant yet despotic, 
humble yet arrogant and usurping. — " Beacon Lights of History," John 
Lord, LL. D., Vol. IV, pp. 361, 362. New York: James Clarke & Co., 
1886. 

Papacy, Builders of, Leo I. — Celestine's second successor, Leo, 
who held the see from 440 to 461, is one of those popes who stand out 
most prominently as agents in the exaltation of the Papacy. To this 
cause Leo the Great (as he is called) brought the service of a lofty and 
commanding mind, of great political skill, and of a theological knowledge 
which surpassed that of any one among his predecessors. And we may 
not doubt that, in his exertions for the elevation of the Roman see, he 
believed himself to be laboring, not for its benefit only, but for the 
benefit of the whole church. Yet while allowing this, we must not let 
ourselves be blinded to the striking fault of his character — the over- 
mastering love of domination. Barrow styles him, " this vixenly Pope," 
and although the use of the epithet is rather strange, we may under- 
stand Vhat Barrow means by it, and perhaps he did Leo no injustice. 
Leo, with a reckless defiance of historical fact, declared the pretensions 
and practices of his church to be matter of unbroken apostolical tra- 
dition, ascribing that venerable character to rules which had been 
introduced within the last half century by Siricius, and even by later 
bishops. And under such pretenses he tried to enforce the usages of 
Rome on the whole church. — " Plain Lectures on the Growth of the 
Papal Power" James Graigie Robertson, M, A., pp. 94, 95. London: 
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 

During Leo's pontificate arose the controversy occasioned by the 
opinions of Eutyches. Like most other controversies of those ages, it be- 
gan in the East; and in 449 a council, which was intended to be general, 
met at Ephesus for the decision of the questions which had been raised, 
[p. 100] ... It disgraced itself by the furious violence of its proceedings 
(among other outrages, the aged Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, was 
so savagely treated that he died in consequence) : it decided amid 
tumult and uproar in favor of the heretic Eutyches. [p. 101] . . . 

Leo, on hearing how things had gone, declared that the late assem- 
bly was not a synod, but a meeting of robbers — Latrocinium — a name 
by which it has continued to be known. He asked the emperor Theodo- 
sius II to summon a fresh council, to be held in Italy; and this was 
one of the occasions on which he cited the Sardican canon on appeals 
as if it had been the work of the Council of Nicaea, " decreed," as he 
says, " by the priests of the whole world." The application was in 
vain; but when Theodosius had been succeeded, a few months later, by 
his sister Pulcheria, who bestowed her hand and the Eastern empire on 
Marcian, a new general council was resolved on. . . . Marcian, as em- 
peror of the East, was resolved that the council should be held within 
his own dominions; and it met in 451 at Chalcedon, on the shore of 
the Bosporus, opposite to Constantinople, 



PAPACY, LEO I 379 

The legates whom Leo commissioned to act for him were charged 
to assume the presidency of the council, and to suffer nothing to be 
done except in their presence; but although much was allowed them, 
they were not able to exercise that entire supremacy which their 
master intended; and there was much in the prpceedings of the council 
which was deeply distasteful to him. [pp. 102, 103] . . . 

That which was most offensive to Leo was a canon (the 28th) 
relating to the see of Constantinople. We have already seen that the 
second general council, in 381, assigned to the bishops of Constantinople 
a position next to the Bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops 
were dissatisfied with this. But differences had also arisen in the East 
as to the privileges of Constantinople; for, whereas the canon of 381 
had bestowed on it nothing but precedence, the bishops of Constanti- 
nople, whose dignity and influence had been continually on the increase, 
had also set up claims to patriarchal jurisdiction over Thrace, Asia, 
and Pontus. The twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, then, was intended 
to settle the privileges of Constantinople; and in so doing it repeated, 
with far greater distinctness, that reason for the precedence of Constan 
tinople, which in the canon of the second general council had greatlj 
offended the Romans, [p. 104] . . . 

On receiving a report of the council, Leo expressed himself strongl\ 
against the twenty-eighth canon. He denied, with his usual audacity 
in such matters, that the precedence of sees had ever depended on the 
importance of the cities in which they were. He asserted that the 
canon of the second general council had never been acted on or notified 
to the Roman see; although (not to mention other instances to the 
contrary) his own legates at the first session of Chalcedon had admitted 
the canon of the second general council by joining in a complaint 
against the Latrocinium for having degraded Flavian of Constantinople 
from the second to the fifth place among the bishops. He pretended 
that the new canon contradicted the Nicene Council by subjecting Alex- 
andria and Antioch to Constantinople; he declared it to be annulled by 
the authority of St. Peter, and loudly complained of the ambition of 
Anatolius in seeking the exaltation of his see. But notwithstanding 
all this vehemence, the canon, from the time of its enactment, was 
steadily enforced by the Eastern court, [p. 106] . . . 

Before leaving Leo, however, let me mention that he introduced a 
novelty of considerable importance, by establishing a bishop at Con- 
stantinople as his representative, instead of the clergy of lower rank 
whom his predecessors had employed in that capacity. This bishop 
was evidently meant, not so much to watch over the interests of Rome 
in the East, as to overlook and coerce the Patriarch of Constantinople; 
and the manner in which Leo interfered even in the internal concerns 
of that church would probably have led to an open breach with the 
patriarch Anatolius, but for the death of Anatolius in 458. [p. 109] — 
" Plain Lectures on the Growth of the Papal Power,'' James Craigie 
Robertson, M. A., pp. 100-109. London: Society for Promoting Christian 
Knowledge. 

There was wanted a inan who could make the see of St. Peter take 
the place of the tottering imperial power: there was wanted a man 
capable above all things of disciplining and consolidating Western 
Christendom, so that it might present a firm front to the heretical bar- 
barians, and remain in unshaken consistency through all that stormy 
period which links the ancient with the modern world. The church 
must be strong, while all else of that old empire was weak. The church, 
preserving her identity, must give the framework for the society which 
was to be. In order then that she might fulfil her function, large sac- 



380 PAPACY, L.EO I 

rifices must be made to the surpassing necessity for unity, solidity, and 
strength. And Leo was the man for the post: lofty and severe in life 
and aims; rigid and stern in insisting on the rules of ecclesiastical 
discipline; gifted with an indomitable energy, courage, and persever- 
ance, and a capacity for keeping his eye on many widely distant spheres 
of activity at once; inspired with an unhesitating acceptance and an 
admirable grasp of the dogmatic faith of the church, which he was , 
prepared to press everywhere at all costs; finally, possessed with, and 
unceasingly acting upon, an overmastering sense of the indefeasible 
authority of the Church of Rome as the divinely ordained center of all 
church work and life, Leo stands out as the Christian representative 
of the imperial dignity and severity of old Rome, and is the true 
founder of the medieval Papacy in all its magnificence of conception 
and uncompromising strength. — " A Dictionary of Christian Biography,'" 
edited, 'by Smith and Wace, Vol. Ill, art. ''Leo 7," p. 654. London: 
John Murray, 1882. 

Leo was, without all doubt, a man of extraordinary parts, far supe- 
rior to all who had governed that church before him, and scarce equaled 
by any who governed it after him. He is extolled by the ancients 
chiefly for his unwearied zeal in defending the Catholic faith, and 
unshaken steadiness in combating the opposite errors, that either 
sprung up or were revived in his time. And truly their encomiums on 
that score are not ill bestowed; though on some occasions he had 
better have tempered his zeal, and acted with more moderation. But 
then his ambition knew no bounds; and to gratify it, he stuck at 
nothing; made no distinction between right and wrong, between truth 
and falsehood; as if he had adopted the famous maxim of Julius Csesar, 
or thought the most criminal actions ceased to be criminal, and became 
meritorious, when any ways subservient to the increase of his power 
or the exaltation of his see. ... So much was he attached to that 
object, that after he had procured, with infinite labor and pains, the 
assembling of an ecumenical council, as the only means of ascertaining 
the Catholic faith, and saving the church, at that time in the utmost 
danger from the prevailing party of Eutyches and Dioscorus in the 
East, he was ready, notwithstanding his extraordinary zeal, to undo all 
he had been doing, and to render that very council ineffectual, had not 
his legates been allowed to preside; an undeniable proof that he had 
more at heart the advancement of his see, that is, of his own power 
and authority, than either the purity of the faith or the welfare of the 
church. I . . I shall therefore only observe here, that he has, and ever 
will have, the demerit of establishing an everlasting warfare between 
the East and the West, between Constantinople and Rome; the bishops 
of Constantinople, and their brethren in the East, thinking themselves 
bound to stand to a decree which had been so unanimously enacted by 
their predecessors, in an ecumenical council; and none of the later 
bishops of Rome, how peaceably soever inclined, daring to receive as 
valid a determination which one of the greatest of their predecessors 
had. with so much warmth, maintained to be null. 

Of this dispute we shall see the dreadful effects in the sequel of 
the present history; and they ought all to be charged to Leo's account. 
For his authority drew in all the Western bishops to take the same 
part, and extended its influence over their successors, as well as his 
own. But as his ambition, in the pursuit of its own ends and designs, 
tended also to raise and promote the greatness of liis see, that very 
crime became the cause of his sanctification, being more meritorious 
to Rome than all his virtues. Indeed, he was a principal founder of 
Uer exorbita,nt power. He brought with him to the pQntificate,^ not 



PAPACY, GREGORY I 381 

only greater abilities, but more experience and practice in state affairs, 
than any of his predecessors; and used these advantages, through a long 
course of years, to advance the dignity and prerogatives of his see, 
with great skill and address, as well as intrepid assurance and courage. 
— " The History of the Popes,'* Archibald Bower, Yol. I, pp. 247, 248: 
Philadelphia: Griffith and Simon, 1847. 

Papacy, Builders of, Gregory I. — The Papacy, when Gregory the 
First, a great and also a good Pope, was elected to it in 590, had risen 
to a position far higher than that which it occupied in the time covered 
by the earlier part of our inquiry. Gregory (who is styled the Great) 
stands in the foremost rank of popes who have contributed to the ex- 
altation of their see. Those who may be classed with him in this respect 
are Leo the Great (440-461), Nicholas I (858-867), Gregory VII (1073- 
1085), and Innocent III (1198-1216); and to these, if his attempts had 
been crowned with success, you might add Boniface VIII (1294-1304), 
who carried the claims of the Papacy higher than any of his prede- 
cessors. 

But Gregory differs from all the rest of them in this respect, that 
he is the only one of these popes whose memory we can regard with 
much affection. Whatever the gifts of the others may have been, and 
although we may make all possible allowance for their sincerity in 
thinking that the exaltation of the Roman see was the necessary 
means toward promoting the welfare of the whole Christian church 
and the highest interests of mankind, there is yet about them some- 
thing which, although we may admire them, makes it impossible that 
we should love them. However pure and unselfish their motives may 
have been, their conduct looks too much as if it were prompted by a 
politic and unscrupulous ambition. 

Gregory I, on the other hand, is a man with whom we feel a 
sympathy which in the case of the others is impossible. His letters, 
between 800 and 900 in number, and those passages of his sermons or 
other writings which bear a reference to his personal circumstances, 
show him to us in a very favorable light, as a man of truly human 
feelings, as struggling with great diflBculties, as kind, generous, tolerant, 
while he is zealous for the propagation of the faith, and thoroughly 
devoted to the cause of the church. 

There are, indeed, two special blots on his character, and, although 
attempts have been made by some writers of more zeal than discretion 
to wash out these blots, there they remain. I mean (1) his subservient 
behavior to the emperor Phocas, a detestable usurper and tyrant in 
whom no trace of goodness can be discovered; and (2) his frequent 
compliments to the Prankish queen Brunichild or Brunehaut, who, 
unless she has been misrepresented more than probability will allow us 
to suppose, was a very strange object for the praises which Gregory 
bestows on her. 

These things, no doubt, are unpleasant to read of; but the right 
way of treating them, if we wish to deal kindly with Gregory, is not to 
deny clear historical facts, or to do violence to our own sense of right 
and wrong, but to admit that he was not without human weaknesses — 
that he was an impulsive man, liable to do in haste things of which he 
might have cause to repent at leisure; liable, in his feeling of zeal for 
the church, to forget the duty of looking at all sides of a question, and 
to welcome such things as seemed to be for the church's immediate 
advantage, without taking account of all the circumstances which 
ought to have entered into his consideration. — " Plain Lectures on the 
Growth of the Papal Power'' James Craigie Robertson, M. A., pp^ 
115-117. London I Society for PrQmoting GhrisMan Knowledge^ 



382 PAPACY, NICOLAS I 

In 568, the Lombards under Alboin descended into Italy; they 
wrested the northern part of the peninsula from the empire; they 
afterward got possession of the Duchy of Beneventum, and in Gregory's 
days they threatened Rome itself. In this state of things, the Pope 
was necessarily called to take an active part in politics. The emperor 
was too far off, and too much engrossed in other affairs, to give any 
help to his Italian subjects; the exarchs cared for nothing but how 
to squeeze the highest possible amount of taxes out of the distressed 
and miserable people; they made no effective opposition to the Lom- 
bards, [p. 118] . . . 

In these circumstances, then, as the pressure of the Lombards made 
it urgently necessary that something should be done, and as no help 
was to be expected either from local authorities or from their distant 
master, the emperor, the Pope was compelled to act for himself, not only 
in his spiritual character, but as a great landowner. He did what he 
could to provide for the defense of the country, and he took it on himself 
to negotiate a peace with the Lombards, — a measure for which he re- 
ceived no better reward from the court of Constantinople than slights 
and ridicule, but which endeared him to the people whom he had res- 
cued from the miseries of war. Here, then, you see the Pope, as a 
great landowner, drawn, through the apathy or the helplessness of the 
imperial authorities, to enter into political engagements; and thus 
Gregory will be found to have paved the way for the great political 
influence exercised by his successors, and for the temporal sovereignty 
which they acquired, [p. 120] — " Plain Lectures on the Growth of the 
Papal Power,'' James Graigie Robertson, M. A., pp. 118-120. London: 
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 

One thing more there is to be noted as to Gregory — his quarrel 
with John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, as to the use of the 
term " ecumenical," which John had assumed as part of his style. We 
have already seen that this title had been sometimes given by Orientals 
to the bishops of Rome, the first instance having been at the Council 
of Chalcedon, when it was used by some Alexandrians who wished to 
recommend themselves to Leo the Great; that it was sometimes also 
given to the patriarchs of Constantinople; and that, according to the 
Eastern usage, it had not that exclusive sense which we might naturally 
ascribe to it; but that the world was supposed to have room for more 
than one ecumenical bishop, since the emperor Justinian gave the 
title alike to the bishops of Rome and of Constantinople. This, 
however, the Latins could not or would not understand; they translated 
the Greek word by universalis, and supposed that ecumenical or uni- 
versal bishop could not mean anything less than sole and supreme 
bishop of the whole church. When, therefore, John of Constantinople 
styled himself Ecumenical, the title was vehemently objected to, first 
by Pelagius II, Gregory's predecessor, and then by Gregory himself. 
Gregory declares it to be a " proud and foolish word; " that the assump- 
tion of it was an imitation of the devil, who exalted himself above his 
fellow angels; that it was unlike the behavior of St. Peter, who, 
although first of the apostles, did not pretend to be more than of 
the same class with the rest (this, you will see, is not very consistent 
with the modern pretensions of the Papacy); that it was a token of 
Antichrist's speedy coming. — Id., pp. 124-126. 

Papacy, Builders of, Nicolas I. — The second successor of Leo 
was Nicolas I, who held the see from 858 to 867. The impression which 
this Pope made on those who lived near his own time, yet far enough 
from it to be able tP yjew Jiim without exaggerating bis importance, 



PAPACY, GREGORY VM 385 

will appear from the words of Regino, abbot of Priim, who wrote about 
a century later. " In the year of our Lord's Incarnation, 868," says 
Regino (but it was really in May of the year before), "the most holy 
and blessed Pope Nicolas, after many labors for Christ, and many con- 
tests for the inviolable state of the holy church, departed to the 
heavenly realms, to receive from the most bountiful Lord a crown of 
glory that fadeth not away, for the faithful administration of the 
stewardship committed to him. From the time of Bishop Gregory to 
our own time, no bishop who has been exalted with pontifical power in 
the city of Rome, appears worthy to be compared to him. He gave his 
commands to kings and tyrants, and ruled over them with authority 
as if he were lord of the world; to bishops and religious priests who 
observed the divine commands he appeared humble, mild, piteous 
(plus), and gentle; to the irreligious and those who strayed from the 
right path he was terrible, and full of austerity; so that in him 
another Elias may deservedly be believed to have arisen in our time, 
God raising him up as another Elias, if not in body, yet in spirit and 
power." [pp. 169, 170] . . . 

Nicolas may be described as sincerely zealous for the enforcement 
of discipline in the church, and as filled with a conscientious sense of 
the greatness of his position, while he never failed in acting up to 
his conception of it with resolute firmness, and with great political 
skill. And circumstances favored his exertions by offering to him 
opportunities of interfering in the concerns of princes and of churches 
in such a manner that his actions appeared to be in the interests of 
justice, and so carried the opinion of mankind with him, while every 
step which he took was also in effect a step in advance for the Papacy. 
His idea of the rights of his see was such as to lead him to aim at 
making all secular power subject to the church, and reducing all 
national churches into absolute obedience to Rome; and, whether he 
was fully conscious of this ambitious scheme or not. he labored very 
powerfully toward realizing it. [pp. 171, 172] — " Plain Lectures on the 
Growth of the Papal Power,'' James Craigie Robertson, M. A., pp. 1&9-172. 

Papacy, Builders of, Gregory VIL — Hildebrand was the chief rep- 
resentative, the very soul, of a party which had been lately growing 
up in the church. He was filled with the loftiest hierarchical ideas; he 
desired to make the Papacy the supreme governing power of the world, 
not only altogether independent of, but superior to and controlling, 
all secular power. . . . 

For these objects Hildebrand was prepared to labor with thorough 
conviction, with unswerving steadiness, with a far-sighted patience, 
with a deep, subtle, and even unscrupulous policy. In conversations 
at Besangon he persuaded Bruno to forego any claim to the Papacy 
which was derived from the emperor's nomination, and to look only 
to the clergy and people of Rome, whose exclusive privilege it was, 
according to tWe views of the hierarchical party, to elect the successors 
of St. Peter. Bruno laid aside the ensigns of pontifical dignity, and, 
taking Hildebrand as his companion, proceeded in the guise of a simple 
pilgrim to Rome, where he declared to the Romans assembled in St. 
Peter's, that it was for them to confirm or to set aside the choice 
which had been made of him. He was hailed with loud acclamations as 
Leo IX, and from that time, under him and his four successors, from 
1049 to 1073, Hildebrand was the real director of the Papacy, [pp. 
196-198] . . . 

Let us pass on to the pontificate of Hildebrand himself, who was 
elected in 1073, and assumed the name of Gregory VII. His election 
was made by the cardinals and approved by the acclamations of the 



384 PAPACY, GREGORY VII 

people, according to the decree of Nicolas II; and, agreeably to the 
same decree, he sent notice to the emperor, and requested him to con- 
firm the choice. This was the last time that the imperial confirmation 
was sought for an election to the Papacy; for Gregory soon carried 
things far beyond the point at which Nicolas had left them. . . . 

Gregory's view of the relations of church and state was, that the 
two powers are irreconcilably hostile to each other, and that the 
spiritual power is vastly above the secular. In the beginning of his 
pontificate, indeed, he spoke of the two powers as being like the two 
eyes in the human body — a comparison which would seem to imply an 
equality between them. But at a later time he likens them to the 
sun and the moon respectively — a comparison by which a great supe- 
riority is given to the priesthood, [pp. 202-204] . . . 

The doctrines here enounced [in the Dictate of Gregory] are far in 
advance of what we have seen in the forged decretals, both as to the 
claims which are asserted for the church against the state, and as to 
the despotism which they would establish for the Papacy over all the 
rest of the church. It is laid down that the Roman Pontiff alone is 
universal bishop. To him alone it belongs to depose or to reconcile 
bishops; and he may depose them either with or without the con- 
currence of a synod. He alone is entitled to frame new laws for the 
church; he alone may use the insignia of empire; all princes are bound 
to kiss his feet; he has the right to depose kings or emperors, and to 
absolve subjects from their allegiance. His power supersedes the 
diocesan authority of bishops, and from his sentence there is no appeal. 
All appeals to him must be respected, and to him the greater causes of 
every church must be referred. No council may be styled general with- 
out his command. The Roman Church never has erred, and, as 
Scripture testifies, never will err; the Pope is above all judgment, and 
by St. Peter's merits is undoubtedly rendered holy. [p. 206] ... 

Such, then, were some of Gregory's principles; and, although they 
were not so fully realized by him as they were by Innocent III, some- 
what more than a century later, it is Gregory VII — Hildebrand — that 
must always be regarded as the man from whom, above all others, the 
papal pretensions derived their greatest development, [p. 207] . . . 

On the 25th of May, 1085, he breathed his last at Salerno. His 
latest words are said to have been, " I have loved righteousness and 
hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile." [p. 212] — " Plain Lectures on 
the Growth of the Papal Power'' James Craigie Rohertson, M. A., pp. 
196-212. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 

When Gregory VII declared that it was sin for the ecclesiastic to 
receive his benefice under conditions from a layman, and so condemned 
the whole system of feudal investitures to the clergy, he aimed a 
deadly blow at all secular authority. Half of the land and wealth of 
Germany was in the hands of bishops and abbots, who would now be 
freed from the monarch's control to pass under that of the Pope. In 
such a state of things government itself would be impossible. — " The 
Holy Roman Empire," James Bryce, D. C. L., p. 158. London: Macmillan. 
d Co., 1892. 

Gregory VII did not aim at securing the papal monarchy over the 
church; that had been established since the days of Nicolas I. He 
aimed at asserting the freedom of the church from the worldly in- 
fluences which benumbed it, by setting up the Papacy as a power 
strong enough to restrain church and state alike. In ecclesiastical 
matters Gregory enunciated the infallibility of the Pope, his power of 
deposing bishops and restoring them at his own will, the necessity of his 
consent to give universal validity to synodal decrees, his supreme and 



PAPACY, GREGORY Vll 385 

irresponsible jurisdiction, the precedence of his legates over all bishops. 
In political matters he asserted that the name of Pope was incom- 
parable with any other, that he alone could use the insignia of empire, 
that he could depose emperors, that all princes ought to kiss his feet, 
that he could release from their allegiance the subjects of wicked rulers. 
Such were the magnificent claims which Gregory VII bequeathed to the 
medieval Papacy, and pointed out the way toward their realization.- — 
•* A History of the Papacy" M. Creighton, D. D., Vol. I, pp. 17, 18. Lon- 
don: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899. 

Last Days of Gregory VII. — As death approached, no conscious- 
ness of the great woes he had occasioned, of the fierce wars he had 
stirred up, of the ruin he had brought upon Germany, of the desola- 
tion he had spread over Italy, of the miserable fate of Rome, seems to 
have disturbed his sublime serenity. At one moment he had believed 
himself a prophet, at another an infallible guide; he was always the 
vicegerent of Heaven; and just before his death he gave a general 
absolution to the human race, excepting only Henry and his rival pope. 
He died May 25, 1085, having bequeathed to his successors the principle 
that the Bishop of Rome was the supreme power of the earth. This was 
the conception which Gregory plainly represents. — " Historical Studies," 
Eugene Lawrence, p. 41. New York: Harper d Brothers, 1876. 

Gregory VII was the creator of the political Papacy of the Middle 
Ages because he was the first who dared to completely enforce the 
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. He found the Pope elected by the emperor, 
the Roman clergy, and the people; he left the election in the hands of 
an ecclesiastical College of Cardinals. He found the Papacy dependent 
upon the empire; he made it independent of the empire and above it. 
He declared the states of Europe to be fiefs of St. Peter, and demanded 
the oath of fealty from their rulers. He found the clergy, high and low, 
dependent allies of secular princes and kings; he emancipated them and 
subjected them to his own will. He reorganized the church from top 
to bottom by remodeling the papal Curia, by establishing the College 
of Cardinals, by employing papal legates, by thwarting national 
churches, by controlling synods and councils, and by managing all 
church property directly. He was the first to enforce the theory that 
the Pope could depose and confirm or reject kings and emperors. He 
attempted to reform the abuses in the church and to purify the clergy. 
Only partial success attended these efforts, but triumph was to come 
later on as a result of his labors. His endeavor to realize his theocracy 
was grand but impracticable, as proved by its failure. It was like 
forcing a dream to be true; yet Innocent III almost succeeded in Western 
Europe a little more than a century later. The impress of Gregory 
VII's gigantic ability was left upon his own age and upon all succeeding 
ages. — " The Rise of the Mediwval Church,'' Alexander Clarence Flick, 
Ph. D., Litt. D., p. 470. I^'eiv York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1909. 

Papacy, Builders of, Innoceist III. — In 1198 Innocent III, the 
most powerful of all the popes, was elected at the early age of thirty- 
seven. He was a man of many noble and admirable qualities, but de- 
voted above all things to the aggrandizement of his see; and for this 
object he labored throughout his pontificate of eighteen years with skilful 
and vigorous exertion. Innocent boldly asserted, in a letter to the 
Patriarch of Constantinople, that to St. Peter had been committed, not 
only the whole church, but the whole world. By him that comparison 
of the spiritual and the secular powers to the sun and moon respectively, 
which I have mentioned in connection with Gregory VII, was elaborated 
and developed more strongly than before. As the moon (he says) 
25 



386 PAPACY, INNOCENT HI 

borrows from the sun a light which is inferior both in amount and in 
quantity, so does the regal power borrow from the pontifical. As the 
light which rules over the day — i. e., over spiritual things — is the 
greater, and as that which rules over the night — i. e., over carnal things 
— is the lesser, so is the difference between pontiffs and kings like that 
between the sun and the moon. 

Innocent's words on this subject were adopted into the decretals 
compiled under the authority of Gregory IX; and a commentator, who 
probably took his measurements from the astronomy of the time, in- 
terprets them very precisely as meaning that the Pope is one thousand 
seven hundred and forty-four times more exalted than emperors and 
all kings. This was certainly no small advance from the original form 
of Hildebrand's illustration, in which the two powers were likened to the 
two eyes in the human head, as if they were equal and co-ordinate with 
each other. And in accordance with such lofty pretensions Innocent 
acted; he declared that the empire had been transferred from the 
Greeks to the Germans by the papal authority, and he claimed for the 
Papacy the right of " principally and finally " disposing of the imperial 
crown [pp. 233-235] . . . 

Throughout all the other kingdoms of Europe, Innocent made him- 
self felt by the vigor and the vigilance of his administration, and not 
only by asserting the loftiest pretensions of the Roman see, but by 
enforcing the obligations of Christian morality. This was indeed (as I 
have already said while speaking of Nicolas I) one of the means 
which, by enlisting popular feeling on his side, as the cause of right 
and justice, by teaching men to regard the Pope as the vindicator of 
innocence against oppression, tended most powerfully to facilitate the 
advance of the Roman Pontiff to that position of supreme arbiter and 
controller which he now attained among the kingdoms of Western 
Christendom. 

In whatever direction we may look, we see Innocent interfering 
with a high hand, and claiming for his oflfice the right of giving laws 
to sovereigns. In Prance, Philip Augustus, by putting away his wife 
Ingeburga, a Danish princess, and entering into an irregular marriage 
with Agnes of Merania, gave the Pope a pretext for intervention. An 
interdict was pronounced on the whole kingdom; and although Philip 
for a time endeavored to resist the sentence and to evade his obliga- 
tions, the terrors of this sentence were so severely felt that he found 
himself compelled to yield to the general voice of his subjects, and to 
submit to the Pope's commands by doing a tardy justice to Ingeburga. 

Still more remarkable was Innocent's triumph as to England, where, 
taking advantage of the contemptible character of the sovereign, John, 
he forced his nominee, Stephen Langton, into the primacy, in disregard 
of the rights of the national church and of the crown, and brought the 
king to submit to resign his crowns into the hands of a legate, and to 
hold the kingdoms of England and Ireland on condition of paying a 
heavy annual tribute to the Papacy. 

In the East, the pontificate of Innocent was marked by an im- 
portant event. A crusading force, which had been gathered for the holy 
war of Palestine, allowed itself to be diverted to Constantinople, where 
it restored a dispossessed emperor to his throne; and afterward, when 
this emperor and his son had been again dethroned by a kinsman — 
when the younger prince had been murdered, and the father had died of 
grief — the crusaders put down the usurper, and established a Latin 
sovereignty in the capital of the Eastern Empire. The Pope had at 
first vehemently denounced the change of purpose from a war against 
the infidels to an attack on a Christian state; but the brilliant success 
of the expedition reconciled him to the irregularity, and he sanctioned 



PAPACY, INNOCENT HI 387 

the establishment of a Latin empire at Constantinople, with a Latin 
patriarch and clergy intruded to the exclusion of the hated native 
hierarchy of Greece. 

In the south of France, this pontificate was disgraced by the begin- 
ning of a war carried on with singular atrocity against the Albigensian 
heretics, which ended in the establishment of orthodoxy by the slaughter 
of multitudes, and in the desolation of the rich and flourishing country. 
It was in this war that the famous Spanish monk Dominic first became 
conspicuous, and to Innocent is to be referred the sanction of the two 
great mendicant orders — the Preaching Friars, founded by Dominic, 
and the Minorites, founded by Francis of Assisi. These orders enjoyed 
the especial favor of the Papacy, and from the manner in which they 
penetrated, as none had before done, to the humblest classes of society, 
in them the Papacy found its most active and most serviceable agents. 

On the whole, it may be said that Innocent was the greatest and the 
most successful of popes. In him the power of the Roman see attained 
its height; and his successors, by endeavoring to carry it still higher, 
provoked a reaction which was disastrous to it. [pp. 237-240] — " Plain 
Lectures on the Growth of the Papal Power," James Graigie Rolyertson, 
M. A., pp. S33-240. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 

It was reserved, however, for Innocent III to realize most fully the 
ideas of Hildebrand. If Hildebrand was the Julius, Innocent was the 
Augustus, of the papal empire. He had not the creative genius nor the 
fiery energy of his great forerunner; but his clear intellect never 
missed an opportunity, and his calculating spirit rarely erred from its 
mark. A man of severe and lofty character, which inspired universal 
respect, he possessed all the qualities of an astute political intriguer. 
He was lucky in his opportunities, as he had no formidable antagonist; 
among the rulers of Europe his was the master mind. In every land he 
made the papal power decisively felt. In Germany, France, and 
EJngland, he dictated the conduct of the kings. — "A History of the 
Papacy'' M. Creighton, D. D., Vol. I, p. SI. London: Longmans, Green 
d Co., 1899. 

The first step in Innocent's plan was to make himself the political 
head of Europe. In Italy he first made himself absolute sovereign of 
Rome by removing all vestiges of imperial rule. The senators and the 
prefect, who held their commissions from the emperor, were required to' 
take oaths to him as their sovereign. The imperial judges were also 
replaced by his own appointees. By persuasion or tactful diplomacy he 
gained a mastery over the warring Roman nobles. From Rome he grad- 
ually extended his sway over the rest of Italy, He was made regent 
of Frederick II, the youthful son of Henry VI, now king of Sicily. He 
forced the Tuscan cities to recognize his suzerainty instead of that of 
the German emperor, and subdued the march of Ancona and the duchy 
of Spoleto. He posed as the champion of Italian independence and 
liberty against foreign rule. His leadership was generally recognized 
and he was called " The Father of His Country." " Innocent III was the 
first Pope who claimed and exercised the rights of an Italian prince." 
When Emperor Otto IV ceded all the lands claimed by the Papacy under 
grants from former rulers, an indisputable title to the Papal States was 
established. — " The Rise of the MedicEval Church,'" Alexander G. Flick, 
Ph. D., Litt. D., pp. 549, 550. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1909. 

No other wearer of the papal tiara has left behind him so many 
results pregnant with good and ill for the future of the church. Under 
him [Innocent III] the Papacy reached the culmination of its secular 



3 88 PAPACY, BONIFACE VIII 

power and prerogatives. The principles of sacerdotal government were 
fully and intelligently elaborated. The code of ecclesiastical law was 
completed and enforced. All the Christian princes of Europe were 
brought to recognize the overlordship of the successor of St. Peter. 
All the clergy obeyed his will as the one supreme law. Heresy was 
washed out in blood. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the dreams 
of Hildebrand had been realized. Yet in this very greatness, wealth, 
and strength, were the germs of weakness and disease which were 
eventually to overthrow the great structure reared by Innocent III and 
his predecessors. — " The Rise of the Medicrval Church,'' Alexander 
Clarence Flick, Ph. D., Litt. D., pp. 566. 567. New York: G. P. Putnam's 
Sons, 1909. 

Papacy, Builders of, Boniface VIII, His Quarrel with Philip 
THE Fair of France. — The conflict began in 1296, when the Pope issued 
a bull, known from its initial words as Clericis laicos, which pronounced 
the ban on all princes and nobles who under any pretext imposed 
tallages on the church and clergy. Although the bull did not mention 
Philip by name, it was clearly aimed at him; the Pope's object being 
to induce Philip by fear of wanting supplies to refer his dispute with 
the English king Edward I to himself for decision. In this object he 
failed at the time, having entirely misjudged the character of his oppo- 
nent. Philip retaliated by prohibiting the exportation of gold and sil- 
ver out of France, thus depriving Boniface of an important portion of 
his revenues, and Boniface found it best for his own interests to repeal 
the bull with regard to France, and to court the favor of Philip. 
Friendly relations were restored, and Philip agreed to accept the arbi- 
tration of the Pope. Thus by a yielding policy Boniface succeeded in 
obtaining a success which he had been unable to gain by force; but 
while the gain was personal, a sacrifice had been made of the dignity 
of his office. 

A year or two later the quarrel broke out afresh, Philip being dis- 
satisfied with the Pope's award, Boniface charging Philip with oppress- 
ing the church. Saiset de Pamiers, the papal legate, threatened the 
king with excommunication, his whole kingdom with the interdict. To 
Philip Boniface v/rote : " Thou art to know that in things spiritual and 
temporal thou art subject to us. . . . Those who think otherwise we 
hold to be heretics." The French prelates he summoned to Rome to 
confer with him on the abuses in Philip's administration; Philip him- 
self he cited to appear before them, bidding him observe, so the letter 
ran, " what the Lord our God utters through us." The celebrated bull, 
JJnam Sanctam, was put forth, repeating in a still more advanced form 
the principles of Innocent III, declaring that to St. Peter, as the one 
head of the church, and to his successors, two swords had been com- 
mitted, the one temporal, the other spiritual; that the temporal sword 
was to be used for the church, the spiritual by the church; and con- 
cluding by the assertion that for every human being subjection to the 
Pope was necessary for salvation. To crown the whole, a bull was 
issued on April 13, 1303, pronouncing sentence of excommunication on 
the king. 

To all these menaces Philip replied with equal boldness; Saiset, the 
legate, who was moreover a subject of France, he contemptuously sent 
out of the kingdom unanswered. To Boniface's laconic letter he replied 
by one equally laconic : " Let thy most consummate folly know that in 
temporal things we are subject to no man. . . . Those who think other- 
wise we hold to be foolish or mad." He forbade the prelates to leave 
the kingdom, and sequestrated the goods of those who disobeyed, and 
assembling the States General, to assure himself of the support of his 
subjects, he recounted the attacks which had been made on his sover- 



PAPACY, BONIFACE VIII 389 

eigDty. The bull, JJnam Sanctam, was publicly burnt, and to the bull 
of excommunication he replied by preferring before the States General 
a list of charges against the Pope, and making a solemn appeal to a 
general council to examine these charges. Thus for the second time 
in Philip's reign an appeal was made from the Pope to a council; the 
sympathies of the States General were enlisted on the side of the king; 
and the weapon which Hildebrand had first employed against the clergy 
was now employed by Philip against Hildebrand's successor. 

The sequel of the struggle is soon told. Boniface had gone too far 
to be able to withdraw, and Philip was not disposed to give way. While 
the Pope thought to celebrate his triumph over France, the handwriting 
was seen on the wall. Before Anagni, his native city, whither he had 
withdrawn with his cardinals from the summer heat of Rome, William 
de Nogaret, Philip's keeper of the seals, appeared on Sept. 7, 1303, at 
the head of a troop of armed men. He entered the city at early dawn, 
and soon the cry resounded: " Death to Pope Boniface! Long live the 
King of France! " The people took part with the soldiers; the car- 
dinals fled. 

Not losing his self-command, but declaring himself ready to die 
like Christ, if like Christ he were betrayed, Boniface put on the stole 
of St. Peter, and with the imperial crown on his head, the keys of St. 
Peter in one hand, the cross in the other, took his seat on the papal 
throne; and, like the Roman senators of old, awaited the approach of 
the Gaul. But he had not been three days in the hands of Nogaret, 
when the citizens of Anagni by a sudden impulse turned round; the 
French were driven from Rome, and Boniface was once more at liberty. 
To Rome he returned; no longer to exercise that sway over men's minds 
svhich he had wielded in the days of his prosperity, but to find himself 
a prisoner, the Sacred College his enemies. In an access of fury, the 
Ghibelline historians relate, brought on by wounded pride and ambi- 
tion, the fallen Pontiff sat gnawing the top of his staff, a^d at length 
beat out his brains against the wall. 

In the fall of Boniface was shadowed forth the fall of the papal 
supremacy, which for so long had held dominion over men's minds and 
bodies. In the bold and unscrupulous use of ecclesiastical power no 
Pope had ever been the equal of Boniface; there is nothing in the life 
of the great Innocent III which equals Boniface's crusade against the 
Colonnas, nothing in that of Gregory VII which approaches the series 
of bulls hurled at the head of Philip. Nevertheless, had all other signs 
of decline been wanting, and could the last scene of Boniface's life be 
expunged from history, those two appeals to a general council, that 
successful enlistment of the sympathies of the States General against 
Boniface, showed that the papal power had begun to decline. The year 
of Jubilee, with its lavish grant of indulgences, provoked the reaction 
which prepared the way for the era of the Reformation. — " The See of 
Rome in the Middle Ages," Rev. Oswald J. Reichel, B. C. L., M. A., pp. 
272-278. London: Longmans, Green d Co., 1870. 

Papyri, Discoveey of Greek. — With Alexander's conquest of Egypt 
(332 B. c), and the subsequent Ptolemaic dynasty, Greeks came more 
than ever before into Egypt, and from Greek centers like Alexandria 
and Arsinoe in the Fayiim the Greek language began to spread. 
Through the Ptolemaic (323-30 b. c), Roman (30 b. C.-292/93 a. d.), and 
Byzantine periods (292/93-640 a. d.), that is, from the death of Alexan- 
der to the Arabian conquest, Greek was much used in Upper and Lower 
Egypt, and Greek papyri from these times are now abundant. The 
300 Aphrodito Greek and Coptic papyri published by Bell and Crum 
(1910) date from 698-722 a. d., and show how Greek persisted in the 
Arabic period. 



390 PAPYRI, DISCOVERY OP 

The first important discovery of Greek papyri made in modern 
times was among the ruins of Herculaneum, near Naples, where in 1752 
in the ruins of the house of a philosopher which had heen destroyed 
and buried by volcanic ashes from Vesuvius (79 a. d.), a whole library 
of papyrus rolls was found, quite charred by the heat. With the utmost 
pains many of these have been unrolled and deciphered, and the first 
part of them was published in 1793. They consist almost wholly of 
works of Epicurean philosophy. In 1778 the first discovery of Greek 
papyri in Egypt was made. In that year some Arabs found forty or 
fifty papyrus rolls in an earthen pot, probably in the Faytim, where 
Philadelphus settled his Greek veterans. . . . 

In 1820 another body of papyri was found by natives, buried, it was 
said, in an earthen pot, on the site of the Serapeum at Memphis, just 
above Cairo. ... In 1821 an Englishman, Mr. W. J. Bankes, bought 
an Elephantine roll of the xxivth book of the Iliad, the first Greek 
literary papyrus to be derived from Egypt. The efforts of Mr. Harris 
and others in 1847-50 brought to England considerable parts of lost 
orations of Hyperides, new papyri of the xviith book of the Iliad, and 
parts of Iliad ii, iii, ix. In 1855 Mariette purchased a fragment of 
Alcman for the Louvre, and in 1856 Mr. Stobart obtained the funeral 
oration of Hyperides. 

The present period of papyrus recovery dates from 1877, when an 
immense mass of Greek and other papyri, for the most part docu- 
mentary, not literary, was found in the Fayum, on the site of the 
ancient Arsinoe. . . . Another great find was made in 1892 in the 
Faydm. . . . 

It will be seen that most of these discoveries were the work of 
natives, digging about indiscriminately in the hope of finding antiqui- 
ties to sell to tourists or dealers. By this time, however, the Egypt 
Exploration Fund had begun its operations in Egypt, and Prof. Flin- 
ders Petrie was at work there. Digging among Ptolemaic tombs at 
Gurob in 1889-90, Professor Petrie found many mummies or mummy 
casings adorned with breast pieces and sandals made of papyri pasted 
together. The separation of these was naturally a tedious and delicate 
task, and the papyri when extricated were often badly damaged or 
mutilated; but the Petrie papyri, as they were called, were hailed by 
scholars as the most important found up to that time, for they came 
for the most part from the third century b. c. 

Startling acquisitions were made about this time by representatives 
of the British Museum and the Louvre. The British Museum secured 
papyri of the lost work of Aristotle on the " Constitution of Athens," 
the lost " Mimes " of Herodas, a fragment of an oration of Hyperides, 
and extensive literary papyri of works already extant; while the Louvre 
secured the larger part of the " Oration against Athenogenes," the master- 
piece of Hyperides. In 1894 Bernard P. Grenfell, of Oxford, appeared 
in Egypt, working with Professor Petrie in his excavations, and 
securing papyri with Mr. Hogarth for England. In that year Petrie 
and Grenfell obtained from native dealers papyrus rolls, one more than 
forty feet in length, preserving revenue laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 
dated in 259-258 b. c. These were published in 1896 by Mr. Grenfell, the 
first of many important works in this field from his pen. 

With Arthur S. Hunt, of Oxford, Mr. Grenfell excavated in 1896-97, 
at Behnesa, the Roman Oxyrhynchus, and unearthed the greatest 
mass of Greek papyri of the Roman period thus far found. In nine 
large quarto volumes, aggregating 3,000 pages, only a beginning has 
been made of publishing these Oxyrhynchus texts, which number thou- 
sands, and are in many cases of great importance. The story of 
papyrus digging in Egypt since the great find of 1896-97 is largely the 



L 



PAPYRI, DISCOVERY OF 391 

record of the work of Grenfell and Hunt. At Tebtunis, in the Fayum, 
in 1900, they found a great mass of Ptolemaic papyri, comparable in 
importance with their great discovery at Oxyrhynchus. One of the 
most productive sources of papyri at Tebtunis was the crocodile cem- 
etery, in which many mummies of the sacred crocodiles were found 
rolled in papyrus. Important Ptolemaic texts were found in 1902 at 
Hibeh, and a later visit to Oxyrhynchus in 1903 produced results almost 
as astonishing and quite as valuable as those of the first excavations 
there. The work of Rubensohn at Abusir in 1908 has exceptional in- 
terest, as it developed the first considerable body of Alexandrian papyri 
that has been found. ... 

Of the Greek Old Testament (LXX) more than twenty papyri have 
been discovered. . . . Twenty-three papyri containing parts of the 
Greek New Testament have thus far been published, nearly half of them 
coming from Oxyrhynchus. The pieces range in date from the third 
to the sixth century. . . . 

Among other theological papyri, the Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus 
dating from the second and third centuries, are probably the most 
widely known. . . . 

It is not necessary to point out the value of all this for Biblical 
and especially New Testament study. The papyri have already made 
a valuable contribution to textual materials of both Old Testament 
and New Testament. For other early Christian literature their testi- 
mony has been of surprising interest (the Oxyrhynchus Logia and Gos- 
pel fragments). The discovery of a series of uncial MSS. running 
through six centuries back of the Codex Vaticanus, bridges the gap 
between what were our earliest uncials and the hand of the inscrip- 
tions, and puts us in a better position than ever before to fix the 
dates of uncial MSS. Minuscule or cursive hands, too, so common in 
New Testament MSS. of the tenth and later centuries, appear in a new 
light when it is seen that such writing was not a late invention 
arising out of the uncial, but had existed side by side with it from 
at least the fourth century b. c, as the ordinary, as distinguished from 
the literary, or book, hand. 

The lexical contribution of these documentary papyri, too, is 
already considerable, and is likely to be very great. Like the New 
Testament writings, they reflect the common as distinguished from the 
literary language of the times, and words which had appeared excep- 
tional or unknown in Greek literature are now shown to have been 
in common use. The problems of New Testament syntax are similarly 
illuminated. Specific historical notices sometimes light up dark points 
in the New Testament, as in a British Museum decree of Gains Vibius 
Maximus, prefect of Egypt (104 a. d.), ordering all who are out of their 
districts to return to their own homes in view of the approaching 
census (cf. Luke 2: 1-5). 

Most important of all is the contribution of the papyri to a sympa- 
thetic knowledge of ancient life. They constitute a veritable gallery 
of New Testament characters. A strong light is sometimes thrown 
upon the social evils of the time, of which Paul and Juvenal wrote so 
sternly. The child, the prodigal, the thief, the host with his invita- 
tions, the steward with his accounts, the thrifty householder, the 
soldier on service receiving his viaticum or retired as a veteran upon 
his farm, the Jewish money-lender, the husbandman, and the publican, 
besides people in every domestic relation, we meet at first hand in the 
papyri which they themselves in many cases have written. The 
worth of this for the historical interpretation of the New Testament 
is very great. — ■ The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited 
by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. IV, art. " Papyrus," pp. 



392 PENANCE DEFINED 

Penance, Defined. — The Latin word poenitentia (from punire in 
an archaic form posnire) means sorrow or regret, and answers to the 
Greek fxeTdvoi.a [metanoia], change of mind or heart. As a theological 
term, penance is first the name of a virtue which inclines sinners to 
detest their sins because they are an offense against God. Then penance 
came to mean the outward acts by which sorrow for sin is shown. . . . 

In a more restricted sense still, penance is used for the penitential 
discipline of the church, or even for the third station of public peni 
tents (so, e. g., I. Concil. Tolet, canon 2), and again for the satisfaction 
which the priest imposes on the penitent before absolving him from his 
sins. Lastly, penance is a sacrament of the new law instituted by 
Christ for the remission of sin committed after baptism. 

So understood, penance is defined as a " sacrament instituted by 
Christ in the form of a judgment for the remission of sin done aftei 
baptism, this remission being effected by the absolution of the priest, 
joined to true supernatural sorrow, true purpose of amendment, and 
sincere confession on the part of the sinner." The Council of Trent 
(Sess. XIV) defines that priests have real power to remit and retain 
sins, that persons are bound by the law of God to confess before the 
priest each and every mortal sin committed after baptism, so far as the 
memory can recall it, and also such circumstances as change the. nature 
of these sins, and that the sacrament of penance is absolutely necessary 
for the forgiveness of post-baptismal sin. 

It is true that perfect sorrow for sin which has offended so good 
a God at once and without the addition of any external rite blots out 
the stain and restores the peace and love of God in the soul. " There 
is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not 
after the fiesh, but after the Spirit." But this perfect sorrow involves 
in a well-instructed Catholic the intention of fulfilling Christ's precept 
and receiving the sacrament of penance when opportunity occurs. 

This implicit desire of confession and absolution may exist in many 
Protestants who reject the Catholic doctrine on this point. They desire 
the sacrament of penance in this suflacient sense, that they earnestly 
wish to fulfil Christ's law, so far as they can learn what it is. In this 
sense the sacrament is necessary for the salvation of those who have 
fallen into mortal sin after baptism. They must receive it actually or 
by desire, this desire being either explicit or implicit. This point is of 
capital importance for the apprehension of Catholic doctrine. We in 
no way deny that God is ready to forgive the sins of non-Catholics who 
are in good faith and who turn to him with loving sorrow. — "A Catho- 
lic Dictionary,'''' Addis and Arnold (R. GJ, art. " Penance," p. 697. New 
York: Benziger Brothers, 1893. 

Penance, Canon on. — Canon I. If any one saith that in the Cath- 
olic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted 
by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto God, as often as 
they fall into sin after baptism; let him be anathema. — ''Dogmatic 
Canons and Decrees,'" p. 116. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 
1912. 

Pentateuch, The Basis of the Old Testament. — The Pentateuch 
occupies in the Old Testament a position akin to that which the four 
Gospels occupy in the New. The account of our Lord's life presented 
in the four Gospels is the basis on which the system of faith and 
doctrine taught by the other writers of the New Testament is founded. 
Similarly the history and theology of the Pentateuch underlie the 
other books of the Old Testament. Even if it could be proved that 
the details of the Israelitish ritual set forth in the Pentateuch do not 



PENTATEUCH, TIME OF 3 93 

altogether harmonize with the references thereto in the other books 
of the Old Testament, it is indisputable that the facts of history set 
forth in the Pentateuch are everywhere accepted in the other books of 
the Jewish Scriptures, whether historical, prophetical, or poetical. — 
•'An Introduction to the Old Testament,'' Rev. Charles H. H. Wright, 
D. D., Ph. D., pp. 70, 71. Neiv York: Thomas Whittaker. 

Pentateuch, A Complete Whole. — The division of the whole work 
into five parts was probably made by the Greek translators; for the 
titles of the several books are not of Hebrew but of Greek origin. The 
Hebrew names are merely taken from the first words of each book, and 
in the first instance only designated particular sections and not whole 
books. The MSS. of the Pentateuch form a single roll or volume, and 
are divided, not into books, but into the larger and smaller sections 
called Parshiyoth and Sedarim. The five books of the Pentateuch form 
a consecutive v/hole. — ''A Dictionary of the BiMe'' William Smith, 
LL. D.. p. 497, Teacher's edition. Philadelphia: Porter and Goates, copy- 
right 1884. 

Pentateuch, Time of. — In regard to the remote past, certainty, in 
the absolute sense, cannot be attained, yet a high probability may be 
reached. In the present case the probability is so high that its differ- 
ence from certainty may be taken as negligible, that the whole Penta- 
teuch, not only every separate book, but all the strata into which the 
critical school has split it up, was in the possession of the northern 
tribes of Israel in the reign of Jeroboam II. These prophetic exhor- 
tations imply, as we have seen, that the acquaintance with the law was 
widespread in every rank of society. But this general knowledge of 
the law implied a very considerable space of time. The dynasty of 
Jehu had power for nearly a century, but, though antagonistic to 
Baal worship, none of its monarchs were zealous for the law. Neither 
Ahab nor his father Omri would be likely to spread the knowledge of 
a legal system which condemned alike their practices at home and 
their foreign alliances; still less likely to do so were the short-lived 
dynasties which preceded. We are thus led to the conclusion that both 
Ephraim and Judah had in common the whole Torah. It is admitted 
that the ceremonies "of the dedication of the temple of Solomon agree 
with the enactments of the priestly code; then the further conclusion 
that these regulations were known possibly as far back as the days of 
Samuel is only to be evaded by alleging interpolation by post-exilic 
hands; in other words, cooking the record. 

It is thus clear that what the Samaritans received, and with them 
the Mesopotamian colonists, was the law which had been the inherit- 
ance of Israel from ancient days, but which had been lost in conse- 
quence of the Assyrian conquest and the deportation of all the more 
lettered people of the land. What Israel got from Assyria was what 
they previously had. They thus did not get the Pentateuch from Je- 
rusalem or from Ezra. — Rev. J. E. H. Thomson, D. D.. in an article, 
" The Samaritan Pentateuch, Its Date and Origin,"" in the Biblical Re- 
view, January, 1921 (Vol. VI, No. 1), pp. 81. 82. 

Pentateuch, Reliability of. — All tends to show that we possess 
in the Pentateuch, not only the most authentic account of ancient times 
that has come down to us, but a history absolutely and in every re- 
spect true. All tends to assure us that in this marvelous volume 
we have no old wives' tales, no "cunningly devised fables;" but a 
" treasure of wisdom and knowledge," as important to the historical 
inquirer as to the theologian. There may be obscurities, there may 



394 PENTATEUCH, THEME OF 

be occasionally, in names and numbers, accidental corruptions of the 
text; there may be a few interpolations — glosses which have crept in 
from the margin; but upon the whole, it must be pronounced that we 
have in the Pentateuch a genuine and authentic work, and one which, 
even were it not inspired, would be, for the times and countries 
whereof it treats, the leading and paramount authority. — " The Histori- 
cal Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records," George Rawlin- 
son, M. A., p. 77. New York: John B. Alden, 1883. 

Pentateuch, Allusions to, in Subsequent Books of the Bible. — 
The Pentateuch is either directly alluded to or its existence implied 
in numerous passages in the subsequent books of the Bible. The book 
of Joshua, which records the history immediately succeeding the age 
of Moses, is full of these allusions. It opens with the children of 
Israel in the plains of Moab, and on the point of crossing the Jordan, 
just where Deuteronomy left them. The arrangements for the con- 
quest and the subsequent division of the land are in precise accordance 
with the directions of Moses, and are executed in professed obedience to 
his orders. The relationship is so pervading and the correspondence 
so exact that those who dispute the genuineness and authenticity of 
the Pentateuch are obliged to deny that of Joshua likewise. The testi- 
mony rendered to the existence of the Pentateuch by the books of 
Chronicles at every period of the history which they cover, is so ex- 
plicit and repeated that it can only be set aside by impugning the 
truth of their statements and alleging that the writer has throughout 
colored the facts which he reports by his own prepossessions, and has 
substituted his own imagination, or the mistaken belief of a later 
period, for the real state of th^, case. 

But the evidence furnished by the remaining historical books, 
though less abundant and clear, tends in the same direction. And it is 
the same with the books of the prophets and the Psalms, We find scat- 
tered everywhere allusions to the facts recorded in the Pentateuch, to 
its institutions, and sometimes to its very language, which afford cumu- , 
lative proof that its existence was known and its standard authority 
recognized by the writers of all the books subsequent to the Mosaic age. 
— " The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch,'' William Henry Green, 
D. D., LL. D., pp. 42, 43. New York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 1895. 

Pentateuch, Its One Theme. — The Pentateuch accordingly has, as 
appears from this brief survey, one theme from first to last, to which 
all that it contains relates. This is throughout treated upon one defi- 
nite plan, which is steadfastly adhered to. And it contains a con- 
tinuous, unbroken history from the creation to the death of Moses, 
without any chasms or interruptions. The only chasms which have 
been alleged are merely apparent, not real, and grow out of the nature 
of the theme and the rigor with which it is adhered to. It has been 
said that while the lives of the patriarchs are given in minute detail, 
a large portion of the four hundred and thirty years during which the 
children of Israel dwelt in Egypt is passed over in silence; and that of 
a large part of the forty years' wandering in the wilderness nothing is 
recorded. But the fact is, that these offered little that fell within the 
plan of the writer. The long residence in Egypt contributed nothing 
to the establishment of the theocracy in Israel, but the development 
of the chosen seed from a family to a nation. This is stated in a few 
verses, and it is all that it was necessary to record. So with the period 
of judicial abandonment in the wilderness; it was not the purpose of 



(M 



M 
M 
O 

m 

A 
o 

I 

s 

0^ 



as ^ 

(=1 tH 

1 d 

$-1 
V 



> 

(S3 



o 

•l-l 




S 

(h 
-)-> 


o 


OI 


xn 








a 


rn 


• • 


d 


•» 




cu 


O) 


•i-i 


cc 


a 


;h 


>• 




0) 




Oi 




0) 


m 


O) 


A 


-t-> 


^ 




^ 


o 


o 


H 


H 




PLh 









o 
•^ 



o 



u 




"V 



CO cc 



>. 


o 


;h 




O cq 


-•-> 


rM Oi 


es 


tH 


t-t 




ce 


S ^• 


n 


a> 1^ 


0) 


OW 


Oh 





o 

"^ -O CO 

a> X >? 

I— I . fl 
la o 

M a> a> 

•2Ss 

cn -H " 



395 



3 96 PENTATEUCH, SAMARITAN 

the writer to relate everything that happened, but only what contributed 
to the establishment of God's kingdom in Israel; and the chief fact of 
importance was the dying out of the old generation and the growing up 
of a new one in their stead. 

The unity of theme and unity of plan now exhibited creates a pre- 
sumption that these books are, as they have been traditionally believed 
to be, the product of a single writer; and the presumption thus afforded 
must stand unless satisfactory proof can be brought to the contrary. 
— " The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch," William Henry Green, 
D. D., LL. D., pp. 29, 30. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895. 

Pentateuch, Samaritan. — About 432 b. c, as we know from Nehe- 
miah 13: 28 and Josephus {Ant., XI, vii, 2 to viii, 4), Nehemiah expelled 
from the Jewish colony in Jerusalem Manesseh, the polygamous grand- 
son of Eliashib the high priest and son-in-law of Sanballat. Ma- 
nasseh founded the schismatic community of the Samaritans, and 
instituted on Mt. Gerizim a rival temple worship to that at Jerusalem. 
Of the Samaritans there still survive today some 170 souls; they reside 
in Shechem and are known as " the smallest religious sect in the 
world." It is true that Josephus, speaking of this event, confuses 
chronology somewhat, making Nehemiah and Alexander the Great con- 
temporaries, whereas a century separated them; but the time element is 
of little moment. The bearing of the whole matter upon the history 
of the formation of the canon is this: the Samaritans possess the Pen- 
tateuch only; hence it is inferred that at the time of Manasseh's ex- 
pulsion the Jewish canon included the Pentateuch and the Pentateuch 
only. . . . Such a conclusion, however, is not fully warranted. It is 
an argument from silence. There are patent reasons on the other hand 
why the Samaritans should have rejected' the prophets, even though 
they were already canonized. For the Samaritans would hardly adopt 
into their canon books that glorified the temple at Jerusalem, It cannot, 
accordingly, be inferred with certainty from the fact that the Samari- 
tans accept the Pentateuch only, that therefore the Pentateuch at the 
time of Manasseh's expulsion was alone canonical, though it may be 
considered a reasonable presumption. — The International Standard Bi- 
l)le Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. " Canon 
of the Old Testament, The," p. 556. 

Peopling of the World, Descendants of Japheth. — The object of 
the author of the tenth chapter of Genesis was to give us, not a personal 
genealogy, but a sketch of the interconnection of races. Shem, Ham, 
and Japheth are no doubt persons, the actual sons of. the patriarch 
Noah; but it may be doubted whether there is another name in the 
series which is other than ethnic. The document is in fact the earliest 
ethnographical essay that has come down to our times. It is a summary, 
like those which may be found in Bunsen's " Philosophy of History " or 
Max Miiller's " Survey of Languages," arranging the chief known na- 
tions of the earth into an ethnographic scheme. In examining it, we 
must remember that it is three thousand years old, and that it was 
written by a Jew and for the Jews. We must therefore only look to 
find in it an account of the nations with which the Jews, at the date 
of its composition, had some acquaintance. 

The genealogy opens with the statement that " the sons," or 
descendants, " of Japheth were Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and 
Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras " (verse 2). Can we identify 
the races intended under these -various names, all or any of them? 

Gomer. — Scripture tells us nothing further of Gomer, excepting 
that his armed "bands" should take part in an invasion of Judea 



PEOPLING OF THE WORLD 39 7 

which was impending at the time when the prophet Ezekiel wrote his 
thirty-eighth chapter, which was probably about b. c. 600. They were 
to come in company with those of Magog, Meshech, Tubal, and Togar- 
mah, "from the north quarter" (Eze. 38: 2-6), and were to join in 
producing a great desolation, but were soon afterward to suffer a re- 
verse. Gomer, therefore, should be a warlike people, not averse to 
taking part in the raids of other nations, dwelling somewhere in the 
north country, or in the regions between Syria on the one hand and the 
Black Sea and Caucasus on the other, and powerful in these parts 
toward the close of the seventh century before our era. Now these 
requirements are all met by a race which the Assyrians called " Gimiri," 
or " Kimiri," and the Greeks " Kimmerii," who warred in northwest 
Asia from about b. c. 670 to 570, and who, according to Strabo, occa- 
sionally ravaged Asia Minor in conjunction with a Thracian people 
called Treres. The Kimmerii dwelt originally in the broad plains of 
southern Russia, the tract known as the Ukraine, but being dispos- 
sessed by the Scythians, they fled (or a portion of them fled) across the 
Caucasus into Armenia and Asia Minor. They there ravaged and plun- 
dered far and wide for about a century, warring with Gyges and 
Ardys, the Lydian kings, burning the temple of Diana at Ephesus, over- 
running Phrygia, and even penetrating into the remote and mountain- 
ous Cilicia, through the passes of Taurus. They have been probably 
identified with the Cimbri of Roman times, a portion of the great 
Celtic race, some of whose tribes were found in Britain when the 
Romans conquered it, and came to be called by them Cambri, and their 
country Cambria. The descendants of these Cambri still hold a portion 
of our country, and know themselves by their old name of " Cymry," 
utterly ignoring the name which we English give them, of " Welsh." 
Others of the same stock maintained themselves for some centuries in 
the north, and gave to the mountainous district that harbored them the 
appellation, which it still retains, of Cumberland. We may say, there- 
fore, that Gomer probably represents the Celtic race under one of their 
best known and most widely extended names, and that the author of 
Genesis meant to include among the descendants of Japheth the great 
and powerful nation of the Celts. 

Magog. — Of Magog, or Gog (for the names seem to designate the 
same people), nothing can be concluded from the word itself. There 
is no recognized ethnic appellative with any pretension to importance 
that bears any near resemblance to either of the two terms. It appears, 
however, from Ezekiel (38 and 39) that the race which these terms, as 
used by the Jews, designated, was one of remarkable power toward 
the close of the seventh century b. c; that it led the expeditions in 
which Gomer participated, and pushed them as far as Palestine; that it 
dwelt, like Gomer, in the "north country;" that its weapon was the 
bow (Eze. 39: 3); and that its warriors were all horsemen (Eze. 38: 
15). These notes of character probably identify the people intended 
with the European Scythians, who were the dominant race in the tract 
between the Caucasus and Mesopotamia for the space of nearly thirty 
years, from about b. c. 630 to b. c. 600; who invaded Palestine and be- 
sieged Ascalon in the reign of the Egyptian king Psammetichus, who 
fought almost wholly on horseback, and were famous for their skill 
with the bow. Probably, therefore, the author of Genesis meant to 
include the Scyths of Europe, the conquerors of the Kimmerians, among 
the races whose descent he traced to the youngest of the sons of Noah. 

Madai. — With respect to the third name, Madai, there is no rooni 
to doubt. Except in this, and the corresponding passages of Chronicles 
(1 Chron. 1: 5), the term "Madai" uniformly means — -and is indeed 
translated uniformly, in the Authorized and all other versions — " the 



398 PEOPMNG OF THE WORLD 

Medes." The Medes called themselves — or, at any rate, the Persians, 
their near kindred, called them — " Mada'' of which " Madai " is the 
natural Hebrew representative. There cannot be the shadow of a doubt 
that in placing Madai among the descendants of Japheth, the author of 
Genesis 10 intended to notify that from that patriarch sprang the great 
and powerful nation of the Medes. 

Javan. — Here again the word itself is a sufficient index to the 
writer's meaning. Javan is the nearest possible expression in Hebrew 
of the Greek term which we render by " lonians," the original form of 
which in Greek was lafon-es. Why and how is uncertain, but the fact 
is indisputable, that the Orientals used this term universally as the 
generic name for the Greek race. The Assyrians called the Greeks of 
Cyprus the Yavnan; the Persians called those of Asia Minor and the 
.^gean islands, the Yuna. The terms " Greek," *' Hellene," " Achaean," 
" Dorian," were unknown in Asia, or at any rate unused by the Asi- 
atics generally, being superseded by the name " Ionian," with which 
alone they were familiar. 

Tul)al and Meshech, constantly coupled together in Scripture (Eze. 
27: 13; 32: 26; 38: 2, 3; 39: 1), seem to represent the two kindred races 
of the Tibareni and the Moschi, who dwelt in close proximity to each 
other on the northen coast of Asia Minor, in the days of Herodotus 
and Xenophon, and who at an earlier period were among the most 
powerful of the races inhabiting the interior. The Assyrian monarchs 
were for several centuries — from about b. c. 1100 to 700 — engaged in 
frequent wars with the Muskai and Tuplai, who then held the more 
eastern portion of the Taurus range, and the tract beyond it, known 
later as Cappadocia. Here was the great Moschian capital, which even 
the Romans knew as Caesarea Mazaca. The author of the Noachide 
genealogy, in all probability, intends to state that the two powerful 
races of the Moschi and the Tibareni were, like the Kimmerians, the 
Scyths of Europe, the Medes, and the Greeks, of Japhetic origin. 

Tiras. — This is the most obscure of all the names in the Japhetic 
list, since no other passage of Scripture throws the least light upon it. 
Jewish tradition, however, asserts that the Thracians are the people 
intended. Etymologically, this is not perhaps altogether satisfactory, 
since the third root consonant of Thrace and Thracian is not s but Tc. 
Geographically, however, the identification is suitable enough; and 
it may therefore be accepted, at any rate, till some more plausible ex- 
planation is offered. Thracian tribes occupied the greater portion of 
northern and central Asia Minor from a remote antiquity. The Thy- 
nians and Bithynians were always admitted to be Thracians. So were 
the Mariandynians, according to Strabo, and, according to others, the 
Paphlagonians. A strong Thracian character belonged to the Phry- 
gians and Mysians, whose very names were, moreover, mere variants 
of those borne by purely Thracian tribes, viz., the Bridges and Maesi. 
Thus the more ancient Hebrews might well include under the name of 
Thracians the chief tribes of Asia Minor, the tribes which immediately 
adjoined upon the Moschi toward the west, just as Tiras immediately 
follows on Meshech in the genealogy. And the author of Genesis 10 
may be understood to include among the descendants of Japheth the 
whole vast nation of the Thracians, which extended from the Halys in 
Asia Minor, to the Drave and Save in Europe. 

Such are the conclusions to which the critical student naturally 
comes when he examines the list of names in Genesis 10: 2 in the light 
thrown on them by other passages of Scripture, by the context, and by 
a comparison of the words used with known ancient ethnic titles. In 
brief, the statement of the verse is, that a special connection of races 
united together the following peoples: the Cymry or Celts, the Scyths 



PEOPLING OF THE WORLD 399 

of Europe, the Medes or Aryans, the Greeks, the Thracians, and the 
comparatively insignificant tribes of the Moschi and Tibareni; that, 
in fact, these several races belonged to one stock, had one blood, 
were but the different branches of a single family. 

Now, here is a statement which may at any rate be compared 
with the results of modern ethnographical research. It is the object of 
ethnography, or ethnology, whichever we like to call it, to trace out, 
as far as the facts of history, of physiology, and of language permit, 
the interconnection of nations. Nations which are really one family 
should have a family likeness; tribes which grew up together must 
have once had a common language. If the Celts, the European Scyths, 
the Medes or Aryans, the G-reeks and Romans (for these two cannot 
be separated), and the Thracians had a common descent, the fact 
should appear in a resemblance between their languages, and in a 
certain unity of physical type. 

What, then, has ethnographical science, following a strictly in- 
ductive method and wholly freed from all shackles of authority, con- 
cluded on the matter before us? A single passage from the greatest of 
modern ethnologists will suflSce to show: 

" There was a time," says Prof. Max Miiller, " when the ancestors 
of the Celts, the Germans, the Slavs, the Greeks and Italians, the 
Persians and Hindus, were living together, beneath the same roof, 
separate from the Semitic and Turanian races." And again, " There 
is not an English jury nowadays, which, after examining the hoary 
documents of language, would reject the claim of a common descent 
and a legitimate relationship between Hindu, Greek, and Teuton." Eth- 
nological science, we see, regards it as morally certain, as proved 
beyond all reasonable doubt, that the chief races of modern Europe, 
the Celts, the Germans, the Greco-Italians, and the Slavs, had a common 
origin with the principal race of Western Asia, the Indo-Persian. 

Now, this result of advanced modern inductive science, a result 
which it is one of the proudest boasts of the nineteenth century to 
have arrived at, is almost exactly that which Moses, writing fifteen 
hundred years before the Christian era, laid down dogmatically as 
simple historical fact. For his " Gomer," as already shown, repre- 
sents certainly the race of the Celts, his " Javan " stands, beyond a 
doubt, for the Greco-Italians, and his "Madai" (Medes) for the Aryans 
or Indo-Persians, while his " Magog " may well stand for the Slavs, 
and his " Tiras " for the Teutons, or Germans. . . . 

Whereas modern ethnological science, basing itself on the facts 
of language, lays it down as a grand discovery that one of the great 
families into which the human race is divided comprises the five 
divisions of (1) Indo-Persians or Aryans; (2) Celts; (3) Teutons; 
(4) Greco-Italians; and (5) Slavs, — Moses, anticipating this discovery 
by a space of above three thousand years, gives as members of one 
family (1) Madai, the Medes or Aryans; (2) Gomer, the Cymry or 
Celts; (3) Tiras, the Thracians (Teutons); (4) Javan, the lonians 
(Greeks); and (5) Magog, the Scythians and Sarmatians (Slavs). The 
only difference between the two schemes is that Moses adds further a 
sixth race. Tubal, the Tibareni; and a seventh, Meshech, the Moschi, — 
races which rapidly declined in power between b. c. 1100 and 400, and 
which perished without leaving either a literature or descendants, 
whence modern ethnological science takes no notice of them. — " The 
Origin of Nations,'' George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 168-179. New York: 
Charles Scrihners* 8ons, 1889. 

Peopling of the Earth. — On awaking from his drunkenness, Noah, 
in the spirit of prophecy, assigned to his three sons the rewards and the 



400 PEOPLING OF THE EARTH 

punishments of" their respective deeds. At that time of the world's 
depopulation, the few men that were in it seem to have acted more in 
a representative than in an individual capacity. It was, therefore, 
the posterity of his three sons rather than themselves that were 
affected by these rewards and punishments. Canaan, one of the sons 
of Ham, received the heaviest share of the punishment which his 
father had provoked. The descendants of Shem were to be blessed; 
God was to dwell in their tents; and the Canaanites were to become 
their servants. " Enlargement " was to be the portion of the descend- 
ants of Japheth, indicating that they were to spread over the widest 
portion of the globe. 

Its FulfilTnent. — The event corresponded with the prophecy. In 
general terms it may be said that most of Africa was peopled by the 
descendants of Ham; most of Central Asia by those of Shem; and most 
of Europe by those of Japheth. According to an Armenian tradition, 
Ham received the region of the blacks, Shem the region of the tawny, 
and Japheth the region of the ruddy. For a time^ some of Ham's 
descendants, particularly the Egyptians and Phoenicians, and the Cush- 
ite founders of Babylonia, were the foremost and most vigorous races 
of the world; but the period of their ascendancy passed away: a great 
part of the Canaanites were subdued and destroyed by the Israelites; 
the Cushite Chaldeans were absorbed by Semitic conquerors; and even 
the Phoenicians, with their mighty daughter, Carthage, ultimately fell 
before their foes. Though the curse of Ham was formally pronounced 
on Canaan alone, it has been reflected more or less on the other 
branches of his family; the black-skinned African became a synonym 
for weakness and degradation. The blessing of God rested very con- 
spicuously on Shem during the long period of Asiatic ascendancy, and 
especially on the Jews — that branch of the Shemites that overpowered 
the Canaanites, and in whose tents God had his habitation, in the 
" tabernacle of Mount Zion." But the Shemites were more a stationary 
than a progressive race. In vigor, enterprise, and progressive power 
generally, the race of Japheth has excelled them all. For many an 
age the Japhethites were little known or heard of; they expended their 
energy in wild and warlike pursuits on the remote plains of Europe and 
Northern Asia. But for more than two thousand years they have been 
the dominant races of the world. Every year the race of Japheth spreads 
wider and wider over the globe; whole continents are peopled by him, 
and, either as colonist or as trader, his foot rests upon every soil. 

Descendants of Japheth. — Gomer, the eldest son of Japheth, is 
thought to have been the ancestor of many of the nations that peopled 
the continent and the islands of Europe, in some of whose names (for 
example, Germans, Cimbri, Cambri, Cumbri, Cimmerii, Crimea) the 
principal consonants in " Gomer," or letters corresponding to them, are 
still preserved. Magog represents the Scythians; Madai, the Medes; 
Javan, the Greeks; Tiras, the Thracians. Ashkenaz, eldest son of 
Gomer, is believed to have peopled the shores of the Black Sea, 
which received from him its first designation, Axenus, afterward 
changed into Euxine. Magog, Tubal, and Meshech are noticed by 
Ezekiel (ch. 38: 2, 14, 15) as settled in the north; and perhaps their 
names may be recognized in the well-known terms, Mogul, Mongolia, 
Tobolski, Moscow, and Muscovy. From these, or from other descendants 
of Japheth that peopled " the isles," or remote coasts " of the Gen- 
tiles," the great races of Europe, including the Greeks, the Romans, 
and the more modern nations, must have sprung. 

Descendants of Ham. — ^Of the sons of Ham, the first-born, Cush, 
appears to have peopled more districts than one. One of these was 



PEOPLING OF THE EARTH 401 

"the land of Cush " (Ethiopia) mentioned in the description of Eden 
(Gen. 2: 13), a district somewhere near the Caspian Sea; another, and 
the principal, was the well-known land of Ethiopia beyond Egypt. Cush 
is also declared to have been the father of Nimrod, a mighty hunter 
and a mighty conqueror, and the founder of the first great Mesopo- 
tamian kingdom. Misr, or Mizraim, was evidently the ancestor of the 
Egyptians; in Hebrew, the land of Egypt is invariably called Mizraim, 
and one of its present designations is the land of Misr. Mauritania 
and other more remote parts of Africa are thought to have been peo- 
pled by Phut; while Canaan, Ham's youngest son, was father of the 
Phoenicians, and of the nations that were destroyed or driven out for 
their sins from the land of Canaan, to make way for the children of 
Israel. Heth, one of the sons of Canaan, is now known to have been 
the progenitor of a very great people; for the Hittites have been proved 
to have been one of the greatest nations of the East. 

Descendants of Shem. — The sons of Shem were Elam, Asshur, 
Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram. Elam seems to have settled in Eastern 
Persia. Asshur was represented by the Assyrians. Arphaxad, the pro- 
genitor of the Shemitic Chaldeans, dwelt in Mesopotamia, north and 
west of Asshur and Elam, and became, through his grandson Eber, 
the father of the Hebrews. Lud is thought to have been the father of 
the Lydians. Aram's settlement embraced the district of Syria near 
Damascus, and the northern part of Mesopotamia, called Padan-aram. 
Uz, the eldest son of Aram, gave his name to the country where Job 
went through his unprecedented trials. 

Though there is great uncertainty as to the exact territories of 
many of the descendants of Noah's sons, the general position of the 
settlements of the three great families is tolerably plain. They did 
not, however, all settle peaceably in their proper territories. Nimrod's 
kingdom was founded in the very heart of the Shemite district. An- 
other family of Ham's, the Phoenicians, were considerably Semitized, 
or assimilated to the Shemites, in language and otherwise, when they 
became prominent in history. It is impossible to draw a distinct line 
separating all the different families. — "A Manual of Bible History,'' 
Rev. William G. Blaikie, D. D., LL. D., pp. 41-43. London: T. Nelson 
<e- Sons, 1906. 

Peopling of the Earth. — The Toldoth Beni Noah (the genealogies 
of the descendants of Noah) has extorted the admiration of modern 
ethnologists, who continually find in it anticipations of their greatest 
discoveries. For instance, in the very second verse the great discovery 
of Schlegel, which the word Indo-European embodies — the aflfinity 
of the principal nations of Europe with the Arian or Indo-Persic stock 
— 'is sufiiciently indicated by the conjunction of the Madai or Medes 
(whose native name was Mada) with Gomer or the Cymry, and Javan 
or the lonians. Again, one of the most recent and unexpected results 
of modern linguistic inquiry is the proof which it has furnished of 
an ethnic connection between the Ethiopians or Cushites, who adjoined 
on Egypt, and the primitive inhabitants of Babylonia, — a connection 
which was positively denied by an eminent ethnologist only a few 
years ago, but which has now been suflSciently established from the 
cuneiform monuments. In the tenth of Genesis we find this truth thus 
briefly but clearly stated, " And Cush begat Nimrod," the " beginning 
of whose kingdom was Babel." So we have had it recently made evi- 
dent from the same monuments, that " out of that land went forth 
Asshur, and builded Nineveh," or that the Semitic Assyrians proceeded 
from Babylonia and founded Nineveh long after the Cushite founda- 
•26 



402 PHARAOHS OF THE BIBLE 

tion of Babylon. Again, the Hamitic descent of the early inhabitants 
of Canaan, which had often been called in question, has recently come 
to be looked upon as almost certain, apart from the evidence of Scrip- 
ture; and the double mention of Sheba, both among the sons of Ham 
and also among those of Shem, has been illustrated by the discovery 
that there are two races of Arabs — one (the Joktanian) Semitic, 
the other (the Himyaric) Cushite or Ethiopic. On the whole, the 
scheme of ethnic affiliation given in the tenth chapter of Genesis is 
pronounced "safer" to follow than any other; and the Toldoth Beni 
Noah commends itself to the ethnic inquirer as " the most authentic 
record that we possess for the affiliation of nations," and as a document 
" of the very highest antiquity." — " The Historical Evidences of the 
Truth of the Scripture Records,'' George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 71, 72. 
New York: John B. Alden, 1883. 

Pharaohs of the Bible. — Pharaoh, the common title of the native 
kings of Egypt in the Bible, corresponding to P-ra or Ph-ra, " the sun," 
of the hieroglyphics. Brugsch, Ebers, and other modern Egyptol- 
ogists define it to mean " the great house," which would correspond to 
our " the Sublime Porte." As several kings are mentioned only by the 
title " Pharaoh " in the Bible, it is important to endeavor to discrimi- 
nate them: ' 

1. The Pharaoh of Abraham. Gen. 12:15. — At the time at which 
the patriarch went into Egypt, it is generally held that the country, or 
at least Lower Egypt, was ruled by the Shepherd kings, of whom the 
first and most powerful line was the fifteenth dynasty, the undoubted 
territories of which would be first entered by one coming from the 
east. The date at which Abraham visited Egypt was about b. c. 2081, 
which would accord with the time of Salatis, the head of the fifteenth 
dynasty, according to our reckoning. 

2. The Pharaoh of Joseph. Genesis 41. — One of the Shepherd 
kings, perhaps Apophis, who belonged to the fifteenth dynasty. He ap- 
pears to have reigned from Joseph's appointment (or perhaps somewhat 
earlier) until Jacob's death, a period of at least twenty-six years, from 
about B. c. 1876 to 1850, and to have been the fifth or sixth king of the 
fifteenth dynasty. 

3. The Pharaoh of the Oppression. Ex. 1 : 8. — The first persecutor 
of the Israelites may be distinguished as the Pharaoh of the oppression, 
from the second, the Pharaoh of the exodus, especially as he com- 
menced and probably long carried on the persecution. The general 
view is that he was an Egyptian. One class of Egyptologists think that 
Amosis (A,hmes), the first sovereign of the eighteenth dynasty, is the 
Pharaoh of the oppression; but Brugsch and others identify him with 
Rameses II (the Sesostris of the G-reeks), of the nineteenth dynasty 

(B. c. 1380-1340). 

4. The Pharaoh of the Exodus. Ex. 5:1. — 'Either Thothmes III, 
as Wilkinson, or Menephthah son of Rameses II, whom Brugsch thinks 
was probably the Pharaoh of the exodus, who with his army pursued 
the Israelites and was overwhelmed in the Red Sea. — "A Dictionary of 
the Bible," William Smith, LL. D., pp. 505, 506, Teacher's edition. 
Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, copyright 1884. 

Pharaoh-Hophra. — The Pharaoh contemporary with the later 
years of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, who reigned from b. c. 595 
to b. c. 586, was undoubtedly Ua-ap-ra, whom the Greeks called " Apries," 
and whom Jeremiah in one place speaks of as "Pharaoh-Hophra" (ch. 
44: 30). Apries ascended the throne in b. c. 591, and reigned alone 
nineteen years (to b. c. 572), after which he was for six years more 



t 



PHAKISE£S 403 

joint-king with Amasis. It would seem that very soon after his acces- 
sion Zedekiah made overtures to him for an alliance (Eze. 17: 15), 
transferring to him the allegiance which he owed to Bahylon, and mak- 
ing a request for a large body of troops, horse and foot (iMd.). It is 
in accordance with the bold and aggressive character assigned to 
Apries by the Greeks to find that he at once accepted Zedekiah's offer, 
and prepared to bear his part in the war. " Pharaoh's army went forth 
out of Egypt" (Jer. 37:5) with the object of "helping" Zedekiah 
(id. verse 7); and the movement was so far successful that the army 
of the Chaldeans, which had commenced the siege of Jerusalem, " broke 
up from before it for fear of Pharaoh's army" (id., verse 11). Nebu- 
chadnezzar, who was directing the siege, marched away to encounter 
the Egyptians, and either terrified them into a retreat, or actually 
engaged and defeated them. The foundation was thus laid of that 
enmity between the two kings which, later in Egyptian history, is 
found to have had very important consequences. — " Egypt and Bahylon,'' 
George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 200. ^ew York: John B. Alden, 1885. 

Pharisees. — When the New Testament records open, the Phari- 
sees, who have supreme influence among the people, are also strong, 
though not predominant, in the Sanhedrin. The Herodians and Sad- 
ducees, the one by their alliance with the Roman authorities, and 
the other by their inherited skill in political intrigue, held the reins 
of government. . . . Outside the Sanhedrin the Pharisees are ubiqui- 
tous, in Jerusalem, in Galilee, in Peraea, and in the Decapolis, always 
coming in contact with Jesus, [p. 2362] . . . The Pharisees were close 
students of the sacred text. On the turn of a sentence they suspended 
many decisions. So much so, that it is said of them later that they 
suspended mountains from hairs, [p. 2363] . . . 

The attitude of the Pharisees to Jesus, to begin with, was, as had 
been their attitude to John, critical. They sent representatives to watch 
his doings and his sayings and report. . . . They were the democratic 
party; their whole power lay in the reputation they had with the people 
for piety. Our Lord denounced them as hypocrites; moreover he had 
secured a deeper popularity than theirs. At length when cajolery failed 
to win him and astute questioning failed to destroy his popularity, they 
combined with their opponents, the Sadducees, against him as against 
a common enemy. 

On the other hand, Jesus denounced the Pharisees more than he 
denounced any other class of the people. This seems strange when we 
remember that the main body of the religious people, those who looked 
for the Messiah, belonged to the Pharisees, and his teaching and theirs 
had a strong external resemblance. It was this external resemblance, 
united as it was with a profound spiritual difference, which made it 
incumbent on Jesus to mark himself off from them. AH righteousness 
with them was external; it lay in meats and drinks and divers wash- 
ings, in tithing of mint, anise, and cummin. He placed religion on a 
different footing, removed it into another region. With him it was 
the heart that must be right with God, not merely the external actions; 
not only the outside of the cup and platter was to be cleansed, but the 
inside first of all. — " The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia," 
Yol. IT, art. " Pharisees," pp. 2362, 2363, 2365. 

Pharisees, Teachings or. — The Pharisees were the most numerous 
and powerful sect of the Jews. The precise time when they first ap- 
peared is not known; but, as Josephus mentions the Pharisees, Sad- 
ducees, and Essenes, as distinct sects, in the reign of Jonathan (b. c. 
144-139), it is manifest that they must have been in existence for some 
time. [p. 362] ... 



404 PHARISEES 

Among the tenets inculcated by this sect, we may enumerate the 
following; viz., 

They ascribed all things to fate or providence, yet not so absolutely 
as to take away the free will of man, though fate does not co-operate 
in every action. They also believed in the existence of angels and 
spirits, and in the resurrection of the dead. . . . 

The Pharisees contended that God was in strict justice bound to 
bless the Jews, and make them all partakers of the terrestrial kingdom 
of the Messiah, to justify them, to make them eternally happy, and 
that he could not possibly damn any one of them! The ground of 
their justification they derived from the merits of Abraham, from their 
knowledge of God, from their practising the rite of circumcision, and 
from the sacrifices they offered. And as they conceived works to be 
meritorious, they had invented a great number of supererogatory ones, 
to which they attached greater merit than to the observance of the 
law itself, [p. 363] . . . 

The Pharisees were the strictest of the three principal sects that 
divided the Jewish nation (Acts 26: 5), and affected a singular probity 
of manners according to their system, which however was for the most 
part both lax and corrupt. . . . 

Further, they interpreted certain of the Mosaic laws most literally, 
and distorted their meaning so as to favor their own philosophical sys- 
tem. Thus, the law of loving their neighbor, they expounded solely of 
the love of their friends, that is, of the whole Jewish race; all other 
persons being considered by them as natural enemies (Matt. 5: 43 
compared with Luke 10: 31-33), whom they were in no respect bound 
to assist, [p. 364] . . . 

But, above all their other tenets, the Pharisees were conspicuous 
for their reverential observance of the traditions or decrees of the 
elders. These traditions, they pretended, had been handed down from 
Moses through every generation, but were not committed to writing; 
and they were not merely considered as of equal authority with the 
divine law, but even preferable to it. " The words of the scribes," said 
they, " are lovely above the words of the law; for the words of the law 
are weighty and light, but the words of the scribes are all weighty." 
Among the traditions thus sanctimoniously observed by the Pharisees, 
we may briefly notice the following: 

1. The washing of hands up to the wrist before and after meat 
(Matt. 15: 2; Mark 7:3), which they accounted not merely a religious 
duty, but considered its omission as a crime equal to fornication, and 
punishable by excommunication. 

2. The purification of the cups, vessels, and couches used at their 
meals by ablutions or washings (Mark 7: 4); for which purpose the 
six large waterpots mentioned by St. John (2: 6) were destined. But 
these ablutions are not to be confounded with those symbolical wash- 
ings mentioned in Psalms 26: 6 and Matthew 27: 24. 

3. Their punctilious payment of tithes (temple offerings), even of 
the most trifling thing. Luke 18: 12; Matt. 23: 23. 

4. Their wearing broader phylacteries and larger fringes to their 
garments than the rest of the Jews. Matt. 23: 5. He who wore his 
phylactery and his fringe of the largest size, was reputed to be the most 
devout. 

5. Their fasting twice a week with great appearance of austerity 
(Luke 18: 12; Matt. 6: 16); thus converting that exercise into religion 
which is only a help toward the performance of its hallowed duties. 
The Jewish days of fasting were the second and fifth days of the week, 
corresponding with our Mondays and Thursdays: on one of these days 
they commemorated Moses' going up to the mount to receive the law, 



PLINY, LETTER OF 405 

which, according to their traditions, was on the fifth day, or Thursday; 
and on the other his descent after he had received the two tables, which 
they supposed to have been on the second day, or Monday, [pp. 365, 
366] ... 

With all their pretensions to piety, the Pharisees entertained the 
most sovereign contempt for the people, whom, being ignorant of the 
law, they pronounced to be accursed. John 7: 49. It is unquestionable, 
as Mosheim has well remarked, that the religion of the Pharisees was, 
for the most part, founded in consummate hypocrisy; and that, in gen- 
eral, they were the slaves of every vicious appetite, proud, arrogant, and 
avaricious, consulting only the gratification of their lusts, even at 
the very moment when they professed themselves to be engaged in the 
service of their Maker. These odious features in the character of 
the Pharisees caused them to be reprehended by our Saviour with the 
utmost severity, even more than he rebuked the Sadducees, who, al- 
though they had departed widely from the genuine principles of 
religion, yet did not impose on mankind by pretended sanctity, or devote 
themselves with insatiable greediness to the acquisition of honors and 
riches. — ''An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the 
Holy Scriptures;' Thomas Hartwell Home, B. D., Vol. Ill, pp. 362-367. 
London: T. Gadell, 1839. 

Pliny, Letter of, to the Emperor Trajan (about 112 a. d.). — It is 
my custom, my lord, to refer to you all things concerning which I am in 
doubt. For who can better guide my indecision or enlighten my ignorance ? 

I have never taken part in the trials of Christians: hence I do 
not know for what crime or to what extent it is customary to punish 
or investigate. I have been in no little doubt as to whether any dis- 
crimination is made for age, or whether the treatment of the weakest 
does not differ from that of the stronger; whether pardon is granted 
in case of repentance, or whether he who has ever been a Christian gains 
nothing by having ceased to be one; whether the name itself, without 
the proof of crimes, or the crimes, inseparably connected with the name, 
are punished. 

Meanwhile I have followed this procedure in the case of those who 
have been brought before me as Christians: I asked them whether they 
were Christians a second and a third time and with threats of punish- 
ment; I questioned those who confessed; I ordered those who were 
obstinate to be executed. For I did not doubt that, whatever it was that 
they confessed, their stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy ought cer- 
tainly to be punished. There were others of similar madness, who, 
because they were Roman citizens, I have noted for sending to the city. 
Soon, the crime spreading, as is usual when attention is called to it, 
more cases arose. An anonymous accusation, containing many names, 
was presented. Those who denied that they were or had been Chris- 
tians, ought, I thought, to be dismissed, since they repeated after me 
a prayer to the gods and made supplication with incense and wine to 
your image, which I had ordered to be brought for the purpose, together 
with the statues of the gods, and since besides they cursed Christ, not 
one of which things, they say, those who are really Christians can be 
compelled to do. Others, accused by the informer, said that they were 
Christians, and afterward denied it; in fact, they had been, but had 
ceased to be, some many years ago, some even twenty years before. All 
both worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed 
Christ. They continued to maintain that this was the amount of their 
fault or error that, on a fixed day, they were accustomed to come to- 
gether before daylight and to sing by turns a hymn to Christ as a god, 
and that they bound themselves by oath, not for some crime, but that 



406 PONTIUS PIIiATE 

they would not commit robbery, theft, or adultery, that they would not 
betray a trust or deny a deposit when called upon. After this it was 
their custom to disperse and to come together again to partake of food, 
of an ordinary and harmless kind, however; even this they ceased to 
do after the publication of my edict in which, according to your com- 
mand, I had forbidden associations. 

Hence I believed it the more necessary to examine two female 
slaves, who were called deaconesses, in order to find out what was true, 
and to do it by torture. I found nothing but a vicious, extravagant 
superstition. Consequently I postponed the examination and make haste 
to consult you. For it seemed to me that the subject would justify con- 
sultation, especially on account of the number of those in peril. For 
many of all ages, of every rank, and even of both sexes, are and will 
be called into danger. The infection of this superstition has not only 
spread to the cities, but even to the villages and country districts. It 
seems possible to stay it and bring about a reform. It is plain enough 
that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be 
frequented again, that the sacred rites, which had been neglected for 
a long time, have begun to be restored, and that fodder for victims, for 
which till now there was scarcely a purchaser, is sold. From which one 
may readily judge what a number of men can be reclaimed if repentance 
is permitted. (Epistles, X. 96.) — ''The Lil)rary of Original Sources," 
Vol. IV, pp. 7-9. Milwaukee, Wis.: TJniversitif Research Extension Co., 
copyright 1907. 

Pontius Pilate. — Of the various procurators that governed Judea 
under the Romans, Pontius Pilate is the best known, and most fre- 
quently mentioned in the Sacred Writings. He is supposed to have 
been a native of Italy, and was sent to govern Judea about the year a. d. 
26 or 27. Pilate is characterized by Josephus as an unjust and cruel 
governor, sanguinary, obstinate, and impetuous; who disturbed the tran- 
quillity of Judea by persisting in carrying into Jerusalem the effigies of 
Tiberius Csesar that were upon the Roman ensigns, and by other acts 
of oppression, which produced tumults among the Jews. Dreading the 
extreme jealousy and suspicion of Tiberius, he delivered up the Re- 
deemer to be crucified, contrary to the conviction of his better judg- 
ment; and in the vain hope of conciliating the Jews whom he had op- 
pressed. After he had held his office for ten years, having caused a 
number of innocent Samaritans to be put to death, that injured people 
sent an embassy to Vitellius, proconsul of Syria, by whom he was 
ordered to Rome, to give an account of his maladministration to the 
emperor. But Tiberius being dead before he arrived there, his suc- 
cessor, Caligula, banished him to Gaul, where he is said to have com- 
mitted suicide about the year of Christ 41. — "An Introduction to the 
Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures," Thomas Hart- 
well Home, B. D., Vol. Ill, p. 114. London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

Pope, Bellarmine on Fifteen Titles of. — Argumentum postremum 
sumitur ex nominibus Episcopi Romani, quae sunt quindecim, [1] Papa, 
[2] Pater Patrum, [3] Christianorum Pontifex, [4] summus sacerdos, 
[5] Princeps sacerdotum, [6] Vicarius Christi, [7] Caput corporis Eccle- 
sise, [8] Fundamentum sedificii Ecclesise, [9] Pastor ovilis Domini, [10] 
Pater et Doctor omnium fidelium, [11] Rector domus Dei, [12] Gustos 
vinese Dei, [13] Sponsus Ecclesiae, [14] Apostolicse sedis Presul, [15] 
Episcopus universalis. — "De Romano Ponti/lce," Bellarmine, Wb. it, c. 
SI. Goloniw Agrippinw: Antonius and Arnoldus Hierati Fratres, 1628. 
(Translation:) The last argument [of the previous chapter] is 
maintained from the names of the Roman bishop, which are fifteen: [1] 



POPE, ADORATION OF 40 7 

Pope, [2] father of fathers, [3] the Pontiff of Christians, [4] high priest, 
[5] chief of the priests, [6] the vicar of Christ, [7] the head of the 
body, the church, [8] the foundation of the building, the church, 
[9] pastor of the Lord's sheep, [10] the father and doctor of all 
the faithful, [11] the ruler of the house of God, [12] the keeper of God's 
vineyard, [13] the bridegroom of the church, [14] the ruler of the apos- 
tolic see, [15] the universal bishop. — Eds. 

Pope, Adoration of. — After his election and proclamation, the 
Pope, attired in the pontifical dress, is borne on the pontifical chair to 
the church of St. Peter, and is placed upon the high altar, where he is 
saluted for the third time by the cardinals, kissing his feet, hands, and 
mouth. In the meantime the Te Deum is sung; and, when the adora- 
tion and the hymn is over, the dean of the Sacred College chants some 
versicles and a prayer, then the Pontiff descends from the altar, and 
is carried to the Vatican; and after some days he is crowned in the 
church of St. Peter by the senior cardinal deacon. — Quoted from Notitia 
Congregationum et Tribunalium Curies Romance (Standing Orders of the 
Court of Rome); cited in "Letters to M. Gondon'' Chr. Wordsworth, 
D. D., pp. 310, 311. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. 

St. Paul predicted the appearance of a power, which he calls " mys- • 
tery," claiming adoration in the Christian temple, taking his seat in the 
sanctuary of the church of God, showing himself that he is God. Let 
us also remember that Daniel's word " abomination," which describes 
an object of idolatrous worship, is adopted by the Apocalypse; and that, 
in like manner, St. Paul's word " mystery " is adopted in the Apoca- 
lypse; and that both these words are combined in this book, in the name 
of the woman, whose attire is described minutely by St. John, and whose 
name on her forehead is " Mystery, Babylon the Great, mother of abom- 
inations of the earth." 

Is this description applicable to the Church of Rome? 

For an answer to this question, let us refer, not to any private 
sources, but to the oflBcial " Book of Sacred Ceremonies " of the Church 
of Rome. 

This book, sometimes called " Ceremoniale Romanum," is written 
in Latin, and was compiled three hundred and forty years ago, by Mar- 
cellus, a Roman Catholic archbishop, and is dedicated to a pope, Leo X. 
Let us turn to that portion of this volume which describes the first 
public appearance of the Pope at Rome, on his election to the pontificate. 

We there read the following order of proceeding: " The Pontiff elect 
is conducted to the sacrarium, and divested of his ordinary attire, and 
is clad in the papal robes." The color of these is then minutely de- 
scribed. Sufl&ce it to say, that five different articles of dress, in which 
he is then arrayed, are scarlet. Another vest is specified, and this is 
covered with pearls. His miter is then mentioned; and this is adorned 
with gold and precious stones. 

Such, then, is the attire in which the Pope is arrayed, and in which 
he first appears to the world as Pope. Refer now to the Apocalypse. 
We have seen that scarlet, pearls, gold, and precious stones are thrice 
specified by St. John as characterizing the mysterious power portrayed 
by himself. 

But we may not pause here. Turn again to the " Ceremoniale Ro- 
manum." The Pontiff elect, arrayed as has been described, is conducted 
to the cathedral of Rome, the basilica, or church, of St. Peter. He is 
led to the altar; he first prostrates himself before it, and prays. Thus 
he declares the sanctity of the altar. He kneels at it» and prays before 
it, as the seat of God. 



408 POPE, DEPOSING POWER OP 

What a contrast then ensues! We read thus: 

" The Pope rises, and, wearing, his miter, is lifted up by the cai - 
dinals, and is placed by them upon the altar — to sit there. One of the 
bishops kneels, and begins the ' Te Deum.^ In the meantime the car- 
dinals kiss the feet and hands and face of the Pope," 

Such is the first appearance of the Pope in the face of the church 
and the world. 

This ceremony has been observed for many centuries; and it was 
performed at the inauguration of the present Pontiff, Pius IX; and it 
is commonly called by Roman writers the " Adoration." It is repre- 
sented on a coin, struck in the papal mint with the legend, " Qwem 
creant, adoranf (Whom they create [Pope], they adore). . . . What 
a wonderful avowal! 

The following language was addressed to Pope Innocent X, and 
may serve as a specimen of the feelings with which the Adoration is 
performed : 

" Most Holy and Blessed Father, head of the church, ruler of the 
world, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, 
whom the angels in heaven revere, and whom the gates of hell fear, 
and whom all the world adores, we specially venerate, worship, and 
adore thee, and commit ourselves, and all that belongs to us, to thy 
paternal and more than divine disposal." 

What more could be said to Almighty God himself? — " Union with 
Rome," Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 52-55. London: Longmans, Green 
d Co., 1909. 

Pope, Deposing Povter of. — I am aware of the fact that by many 
this power of the Roman Pontiff to depose apostate rulers is either 
denied, or at all events rendered doubtful; but how this can be done 
in good faith, we do not easily see, especially since it pertains to a most 
solemn matter, intimately connected with purity of the faith, concern- 
ing which unquestionable testimonies occur in history. Particularly 
should be noted the words which St. Gregory VII used: "Holding to 
the decrees of our holy predecessors, we, by our apostolic authority, 
absolve from their oath those who are bound by allegiance or oath to 
excommunicated persons, and we prohibit them from keeping faith with 
them in any way, until they make amends." 

Moreover, it will be worth our while to quote here the very famous 
words with which Boniface VIII [in the bull Unam Sanctam'] set forth 
the superiority of the ecclesiastical power over the civil: 

" In this church and in its power are two swords, to wit, a spiritual 
and a temporal, and this we are taught by the words of the gospel; for 
when the apostles said, 'Behold, here are two swords' (in the church, 
namely, since the apostles were speaking), the Lord did not reply that 
it was too many, but enough. And surely he who claims that the tem- 
poral sword is not in the power of Peter has but ill understood the 
word of our Lord when he said, ■ Put up again thy sword into his place.' 
Both the spiritual and the material sword, therefore, are in the power 
of the church, the latter indeed to be used for the church, the former 
by the church, the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand 
of kings and soldiers, but by the will and sufferance of the priest. 

" It is fitting, moreover, that one sword should be under the other, 
and the temporal authority subject to the spiritual power. For when 
the apostle said, ' There is no power but of God : the powers that be 
are ordained of God,' they would not be ordained unless one sword were 
under the other, and one, as inferior, was brought back by the other 
to the highest place. . . . For as the truth testifies, the spiritual power 
has to regulate the temporal power, and judge it if it takes a wrong 
course; thus with reference to the church and the ecclesiastical power, 



POPE, DEPOSING POWER OF 409 

is fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah: 'Behold, I have appointed thee 
today over nations and . kingdoms.' . . . We, moreover, proclaim, de- 
clare, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation 
for every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." 

Neither can I refrain from quoting also the striking words, possibly 
not sufficiently well known, by which the angelic doctor [St, Thomas 
Aquinas], with his customary keenness of intellect, proves in a very 
clear argument the pre-eminence of the chief Pontiff over all kings, by 
maintaining a distinction between the new law and the old. — " De Sta- 
Mlitate et Progressu Dogmatis.'' Fr: Alexius M. Lepicier, 0. S. M. (R. GJ, 
pp. Sll. 212. Officially printed at Rome, 1910. 

The common opinion teaches that the Pope has power over two 
swords, namely, the spiritual and temporal, which jurisdiction and 
power Christ himself gave to Peter and his successors (Matt. 16:19), say- 
ing, " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and what- 
soever thou Shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and what- 
soever thou Shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," concerning 
which the doctors remark that he did not say " key " but " keys," 
including both the temporal and the spiritual power. 

This opinion is most widely confirmed by the authority of the holy 
Fathers, by the teaching of the canon and civil law, and by the apos- 
tolic constitutions. — " Prompta Bihliotheca " (Ecclesiastical Dictionary), 
Rev. P. F. Lucius Ferraris (R. C). art. " Papa '* (the Pope). 

Unbelieving princes and kings by the decision of the Pope can be 
deprived in certain cases of the dominion which they have over the 
faithful, — as, if they have taken possession of the lands of Christians by 
force, or if they compel the faithful whom they have conquered to turn 
from the faith, and so on, — as is clearly shown by Cardinal Bellar- 
mine in his " Apology Against the King of England," chapter 4. 

And hence the Pope grants the provinces which formerly belonged 
to Christians, but which have been seized by unbelievers, to be acquired 
by any of the Christian princes. — Ibid. 

It is not to be wondered at if to the Roman Pontiff, as to the vicar 
of Him whose is the earth and the fulness thereof, the world and all 
who dwell therein, etc., there have been granted, when just cause de- 
mands, the most complete authority and power of transferring king 
doms, of dashing in pieces scepters, of taking away crowns, not only 
unsheathing the spiritual but also the material sword. Which power 
in its fulness, not once but frequently, the Roman pontiffs have used, 
as occasion required, by girding the sword upon the thigh most effec- 
tively, as is perfectly well known; and to this not only do theologians 
give most complete testimony, but also the professors of pontifical and 
imperial law, and many historians of undoubted credibility, both pro- 
fane and sacred, both Greek and 'La.tm.— Ibid. 

The authority of princes and the allegiance of subjects in the civil 
state of nature is of divine ordinance; and therefore, so long as princes 
and their laws are in conformity to the law of God, the church has no 
power or jurisdiction against them, nor over them. If princes and their 
laws deviate from the law of God, the church has authority from God 
to judge of that deviation, and to oblige to its correction. — " The Vati- 
can Decrees/' Henry Edward (Cardinal Manning) (R. C). p. 54. London: 
Longmans, Green & Co., 1875. 

Even after the Reformation, Simancas, bishop of Badajoz, declared 
that the popes have power to dethrone kings who are useless to their 



410 POPE, DEPOSING POWER OF 

subjects and who adopt laws adverse to the interests of religion. — 
" Studies in Church History" Henry G. Lea, p. S86. Philadelphia: 
Henry G. Lea's Sons d Go., 188$. 

Before me is an edition of the Bullarium Romanum, printed at 
Rome, " facultate et privilegio sanctissimi." In it I find the bull by 
which Gregory VII (Hildebrand) deposed the emperor Henry the Fourth, 
and absolved his subjects from their allegiance. I see the same act 
repeated in another document in the same collection. Passing over the 
bulls in which Pope Gregory IX excommunicated the emperor Fred- 
erick II, and in which Pope Innocent IV deposed the same sovereign, I 
see there the bull in which Paul III, in 1535, excommunicated King 
Henry the Eighth of England, and ordered his nobles to rebel against 
him. I proceed further, and find another similar document in which 
Pius V (now canonized as a saint of the Church of Rome) pretended to 
depose Queen Elizabeth, and to deprive her of what he called " prwtenso 
regni jure " [her pretended right to the kingdom], and to declare her 
subjects " forever absolved from any oath, and all manner of duty, 
allegiance, and obedience to her; " and commanded them, on pain of 
excommunication, " not to presume to obey her monitions, mandates, 
and laws." In the year 1640 Paul V, and in 1671 Clement X, anathe- 
matized all Protestant princes and subjects as heretics. — " Letters to 
M. Gondon," Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 294, 295. London: Francis d 
John Rivington, 1848. 

But let the Papacy be reminded that in former times for six cen- 
turies it used its spiritual weapons in order to deprive others of their 
temporalities. Pope Gregory VII used them to dethrone the emperor 
of Germany, Henry IV; Pope Innocent III used them to dethrone the 
emperor Otho and King John of England. Popes Honorius III, Greg- 
ory IX, and Innocent IV used them to deprive Frederick II of his 
dominions. Pope Paul III used them to dethrone our Henry VIII. Pope 
Pius V (canonized as a saint) and Gregory XIII used them to depose 
Queen Elizabeth. Pope Urban VIII used them against our King 
Charles I. And even at the present day, the Church of Rome eulo- 
gizes Pope Gregory VII in her Breviary, whom she has canonized as 
a saint, because he " deprived the emperor Henry IV of his kingdom, 
and released his subjects from their oaths of allegiance to him." — 
" Union with Rome,'" Ghr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 100. London: Long- 
mans, Green d Go., 1909. 

[The following extracts are taken from the bull of Pope Pius V, de- 
posing Queen Elizabeth of England in 1570. — Editobs.] 

" He that reigneth on high, to whom all power in heaven and earth 
is given, has with all fulness of power delivered the rule of the one 
holy catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salva- 
tion, to one sole [ruler] upon earth, to wit, to Peter, the prince of the 
apostles, and to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter. Him alone 
he hath set as prince over all nations and all kingdoms, to pull up, to 
destroy, to overthrow, and to break down, to plant, and to build, that 
he may keep the people faithful, bound with the bond of mutual love, 
and in the unity of the Spirit, and present them unhurt and safe to his 
Saviour." 

The document then goes on to speak of " Elizabeth, the pretended 
queen of England, the slave of vices," and concludes thus: 

" Article 4. Moreover she herself is deprived of her pretended right 
to the aforesaid kingdom, and also of all dominion, dignity, and privi- 
lege whatsoever. 



POPE, MEDIATION OF 411 

" Art. 5. And so we absolve the nobles, subjects, and peoples of the 
said kingdom, and all others who have taken any oath to her, from the 
obligation of their oath and besides from all duty of dominion, fidelity, 
and obedience: and we deprive the said Elizabeth of her pretended right 
to the kingdom and of all other things as is aforesaid: and we charge 
and order all and every the nobles, subjects, and peoples, and others 
aforesaid, not to venture to obey her monitions, commands, and laws. 
And we attach the like sentence of anathema to those who shall act 
otherwise. ... 

" Given at St. Peter's at Rome 25th February, 1570, in the fifth year 
of our pontificate." — " Our Brief Against Rome," Rev. Charles Stuteville 
Isaacson, M. A., Appendix B, p. 268. London: The Religious Tract 
Society, 1905. 

Pope, Mediation of, in National Affairs. — Here is the history of 
the Pope's success as arbitrator, as furnished these days by the Bollet- 
tino Salesiano: 

440-461 — St. Leo I: With Attila, king of the Huns, in favor of Italy. 

590-604 — St. Gregory I: With Agitulfo, king of the Lombards, in favor 
of the Romans. 

590-604 — St. Gregory I: Between the emperors of the Orient and the 
Lombards. 

715-731 — St. Gregory II: With Luitprandus, king of the Lombards, in 
favor of the Romans. 

741-752 — St. Gregory II: With Luitprandus, king of the Lombards, in 
favor of the Romans. 

1055-1057 — Victor 11: Between Emperor Henry III, Baldwin of Flan- 
ders, and Geoffrey of Lorene. 

1094-1654 — St. Leo IX: Between Emperor Henry III and King Andrew 
of Hungary. 

1198-1215 — Innocent III: Between John of England and Philip Augus- 
tus of France. 

1216-1227 — Honorius III: Between Louis VIII of France and Henry III 
of England. 

1243-1254 — Innocent IV: Between the king of Portugal and his people. 

1277-1280 — Nicholas III: Mediator several times between Emperor Ru- 
dolf of the Hapsburgs and Charles of Anjou, king of Naples. 

1316-1334 — John XXII: Between King Edward of England and Robert 
of Scotland. 

1334-1342 — Benedict XII: Between Edward Plantagenet of England and 
Philip of Valois, king of France. 

1370-1378 — Gregory XI : Between the king of Portugal and the king of 
Castille. 

1447-1455 — Nicholas V: Mediations in Germany, Hungary, and Italy. 

1484-1492 — Innocent VIII: Mediations in Moscow, Austria, and Eng 
land. 

1492-1503 — Alexander VI : Between Spain and Portugal. 

1572-1585 — Gregory XIII: Between the king of Poland and the czar of 
Moscow. g 

1623-1644 — Urban VIII: Mediations to allay the dissensions provoked 
by the succession to the duchies of Mantua and Monferrato. 

1878-1903 — Leo XIII: Between Germany and Spain. 

1878-1903 — Leo XIII: Between the republics of Haiti and San Domingo. 

1915- — Benedict XV: Mediations between Germany, Austria, and 
Russia on the one part, and England, France, Belgium, 
Serbia, and Montenegro on the other, for the exchange of 
disabled prisoners and of interned civilians, — Baltimore 
Catholic Review (R. C), June 5, 1915, 



412 POSTAL. SYSTEM, PERSIAN 

Postal System, Persian, in Time of Esther. — The Persian postal 
system was established by Cyrus the Great during a reign continuing 
from 559 to 529 b. c. It was greatly improved by Darius, to whom some 
even ascribe its origination. (Rawlinson, "Ancient Monarchies," Vol. 
Ill, p. 426.) Herodotus (viii. 98) gives the credit to Xerxes. This 
latter monarch in the earlier years of his reign devoted himself to the 
thorough organization and the general improvement of his realm. He 
perceived that the peace and permanency of his rule would be greatly 
enhanced by quick communication between himself and all parts of his 
vast empire, that he might thus have prompt and frequent reports from 
every officer of his government, and be able speedily to transmit his 
own directions and decrees. Thus only he could have " well in hand " 
an empire of twenty satrapies and one hundred and twenty-seven dis- 
tricts, extending from India to Ethiopia. 

Accordingly, he established posthouses along the chief lines of 
travel at intervals of about fourteen miles, according to the average 
capacity of a horse to gallop at his best speed without stopping. At 
each of these there were maintained by state a number of couriers 
and several relays of horses. One of these horsemen receiving an 
official document rode at utmost speed to the next posthouse, whence 
it was taken onward by another horse, and perhaps by a new courier. 
Ballantine ("Midnight Marches Through Persia") states that at 
the present day a good horseman of that country will often travel 
one hundred and twenty miles or more each day for ten or twelve days 
consecutively. 

Such was the method of transmitting messages existing in the time 
of Xerxes and Esther, and in our day still employed by the govern- 
ment of Persia, and, under substantially the same form, in thinly 
settled regions of Russia and other countries. This system was adopted 
with some improvements by the Greeks and Romans, and transmitted 
to the nations of Western Europe, with whom in the course of cen- 
turies it developed into the inexpressibly useful form in which it has 
been enjoyed by us. 

But in ancient times the postal system was intended only for 
the use of the monarch and those " whom he delighted to honor," and 
not for his people, who derived no direct benefit from it. It is true that 
good roads, bridges, ferries, and inns were established; that by guard- 
houses these routes were kept free from brigands which infested the 
empire (Herod., v, 52); and that travelers might journey upon these 
highways; but it does not appear that they could obtain the use of the 
post horses, even when the government was in no need of them. And 
above all, the post itself was only for the king. It soon became a law 
of the system that a courier might impress man or beast into his 
service, and it was regarded a serious offense to resist such impress- 
ment. This privilege of couriers was subsequently, as is well known, 
a part of the Roman system, reference to which is found in the familiar 
instruction of our Saviour, " Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, 
go with him twain." Matt. 5: 41; 27: 32; Mark 15: 21. The messages 
of the king were thus " hastened and pressed on " at any inconvenience 
to the people, but common men must send their letters by caravans, by 
special messengers, or in any way they might. — " The Book of Esther, 
A New Translation" edited by Rev. John W. Haley, M. A., pp. 117-119. 
Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1885. 

Priesthood, The Roman, of Heathen Origin. — The title of the 
Pope, " Pontifex Maximus," is entirely pagan. In all pagan countries, 
Babylon, Egypt, Rome, Peru, etc., the king or emperor was the chief 



PRIESTHOOD, ROMAN 413 

priest, or Pontifex Maximus. Just also as the Pope is called " Vice- 
Deo " and " Vicar of Christ," so was the pagan pontiff regarded as 
•' the representative of the Divinity on earth," and " a partaker of the 
divine nature." This is also the case with the Grand Lama of Thibet, 
and the king and high priest of the Incas had similar attributes. Just 
also as the Pope is declared to be infallible, so was the Egyptian pontiff 
believed to be " incapable of error; " a characteristic which also applies 
to the Grand Lama. Like the Pope also, they were worshiped by the 
people. Just also as kings and ambassadors used to kiss the slippers 
of the Pope, so likewise the pontiff kings of Chaldea wore slippers for 
subject kings to kiss. 

The Roman emperors, as high pontiffs, were paid divine honors; 
hence the alternative offered to the early Christians, " Sacrifice to Caesar, 
or death." But the homage paid to the pagan pontiff in every country 
did not exceed that demanded and received by the popes in the pleni- 
tude of their power. Such titles as " Our Most Holy Lord," " Our Lord 
God the Pope," " His Divine Majesty, Vice-God," and the ordinary 
title of " Your Holiness," which was also the ordinary title of the pagan 
pontiff, as well as the claim to infallibility, gave him of necessity all 
the attributes, and consequent position, of God to the peoples who were 
professedly the Christian church, "the temple of God; " "so that he as 
God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." 

The miter worn by the Pope, cardinals, and bishops, with a slit 
down the middle, is not the Jewish miter, which was a turban, but the 
pagan miter. It is exactly the same as that worn by the Grand Lama, 
and the same as that worn by the emperor of China when, as high 
pontiff, he blesses the people. This miter is the representation of a 
fish's head, and it is the same as that worn by the Egyptian high pontiff 
as the representative of the pagan god, who in one of his principal 
aspects was Cannes, the fish god, who was called " The Teacher of Man- 
kind," " The Lord of Understanding," etc. It was in short the symbol 
of the pontiff's claim to be infallfble or " The Lord of Understanding." 

The crosier of the Pope and Roman Catholic bishops is the lituus 
of the pagan augurs, and was called the lituus by Roman Catholic 
writers previous to the Reformation. 

The keys carried by the Pope are a resuscitation of the keys carried 
by the pontiff of pagan Rome as high priest of Janus and Cybele, each 
of whom bore a key, and the pontiff was attired in a similar way as 
their representative on earth, [pp. 89, 90] . . . 

The priesthood of Rome claim to be the successors of the apostles, 
but they have been the chief opposers of the truth taught by the apos- 
tles and the chief agents in resuscitating the idolatry which Christ 
came to destroy. On the other hand they have a true and just claim to 
be the successors of the pagan priesthood. For not only are the title 
and ofllce of Pontifex Maximus, and the orders, oflBces, sacerdotal 
dresses, symbols, doctrines, sorceries, and idolatries of the priesthood 
of Rome directly derived from the priesthood of paganism, but they are 
the rightful and direct successors of the supreme pontiffs and priest- 
hood of ancient Babylon and pagan Rome. — " The True Christ and the 
False Christ," J. Gamier, Vol. II, pp. 89-92. London: George Allen, 1900. 

Note. — In an editorial in the Tablet (Roman Catholic) of June 13, 1914, 
Italy is mentioned as that nation " whose capital is also the center of Christen- 
dom, and against the spoliation of which as the seat of his necessary temporal 
dominion Christendom's head, in the person of our High Priest [Italics oursl, 
still makes his dignified protest." It is thus made clear that Roman Catholics 
regard the Pope as " our High Priest." — Eds. 

Priesthood, No Sacrificing Priests in the New Testament. — 
I. We find that though the New Testament, from end to end, is full of 



414 PRIESTHOOD, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 

accounts of Christian ministers, their lives and doings, the name of 
hiereus, or " priest," is never once applied to them, or to any one of 
them. Surely this alone should be decisive to every plain mind. It 
would be an absurdity to suppose that the one name which Romanists 
and ritualists apply to Christian ministers, and regard as so important, 
should be exactly the one name which the New Testament resolutely and 
deliberately refuses them, 

2. I say resolutely and deliberately refuses them; for that it is 
not and cannot be the result of accident may be proved at once, to say 
nothing of the fact that had the New Testament been the sport and 
prey of such accidents, it could not possibly be our final guide; since 
it would then say much about less essential points in the Christian min- 
istry, and nothing about the very point which the sacerdotalists regard 
as the most important of all. 

3. We all know that the New Testament does apply ten other names 
to Christian ministers of every class, and never once even strays into 
this name of hiereis, or sacrificing priests. It calls them apostles, 
prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, ministers, overseers, presbyters, 
deacons, stewards. Would it not be strange indeed that it should never 
give them the one name which so many of them covet, if that were an 
admissible name? Even St. Peter, one of the greatest of the apostles, 
so far from coveting the name " priest," says, " The presbyters which 
are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter." Even St. John, the 
disciple whom Jesus loved, chose no name for himself but " John the 
Presbyter." 

4. And that the refusal of the name " sacrificing priests " to the 
Christian presbyters were deliberate is transparently obvious from the 
fact that this name hiereus — if the Christian minister had even in 
any secondary and analogical sense been meant to be a hiereus — was 
the very one which lay most easily, obviously, and intelligibly at hand. 
For the ancient world was full of saorificing priests, and of sacrificing 
priests only. The only priests of the pagan world were sacrificing 
priests. The only priests among the Jews were sacrificing priests. Yet 
while Christ, and all the evangelists, and all the apostles, and all the 
earliest Christian writers deliberately went out of their way to shun 
this word, they at the same time chose such purely civil words as 
presbyter, overseer, and deacon. That " presbyter " was a non-priestly 
word, and that the word " priest " in our Prayer Book was never meant 
for anything but presbyter, and is derived from it, every one knows; 
and recent explorations in Palestine have conclusively shown that the 
two other names chosen to describe the Christian ministry, namely, 
episkopoi and diakonoi, which were deliberately selected by the apos- 
tles and early Christians, were the names of purely civil oflaces. 

5. But even that is not all. As though to prove decisively that there 
was deep reason for not giving the title hiereis to Christian ministers, 
the word is used of Christians as a whole, but not of ministers. For 
instance, St. Peter by analogy, in a secondary and metaphorical sense, 
twice calls all Christians "a sacrificial priesthood; " but to prevent any 
mistake in the metaphor, he expressly adds a defining clause in both 
verses, that the only sacrifices they can offer are " spiritual sacrifices " 
and " the praises of God." And in the Apocalypse hiereis is used three 
times of all Christians, and not once of ministers. In the four Gos- 
pels it is not once used either of Christ or of any one of his disciples, 
but only of Jewish priests — who ultimately murdered Christ. The 
Acts of the Apostles is the first and the best of all ecclesiastical his- 
tories, and is entirely about the doings of the first Christian ministers. 
The word occurs in that book three times of Jewish priests, once of a 
heathen priest, not once of any Christian minister. There are thirteen 



PROPHECY, CHARACTER OF 415 

epistles of St. Paul. The word Mereis does not once occur in any one of 
them. Three of these epistles are especially addressed to Christian min- 
isters. Yet they, and those which they are to guide, are not once called 
by this name, though they are called by various other names. There 
are two epistles of the great apostle St. Peter; three of the beloved dis- 
ciple, St. John; one of St. Jude; one of St. James, the Lord's brother — 
not one of these, even when directly addressing ministers or speaking 
of them, ever calls them by this name. On the other hand, in the Acts 
of the Apostles, where we read how the Christian ministry was organ- 
ized by the infant church, " presbyter " is applied to Christian minis- 
ters at least ten times; and in the pastoral epistles five times; and in 
St. Peter twice; and in St. John twice; and in the Apocalypse twelve 
times. — " The Bible and the Ministry,'' F. W. Farrar; quoted in " The 
Claims of Rome,'" Samuel Smith, M. P., pp. 51-53. London: Elliot Stock, 
1903. 

Prophecy, Character of. — It is opposed to the nature of God to 
force men to believe. He hides himself in history, as well as in 
nature, that he may be found of them that seek him. And thus in the 
prophecies also, there was sufficient clearness for those whose hearts 
were prepared to be able to discover whatever was essential and im- 
portant to themselves, and everything that related to the salvation of 
their souls; and on the other hand so much obscurity that those who 
did not desire the truth, might not be forcibly constrained to see it. 
It would be just as reasonable to demand that God should work miracles 
every day, for the purpose of convincing those that despise his name 
of the folly of their conduct, as to require that there should be greater 
clearness in the prophecies. That there was sufficient light to lead 
the elect to Christ, is evident from the living examples of Zechariah, 
Simeon, John the Baptist, Mary, Anna, and others. 

If the prophecies had possessed the clearness of history, their ful- 
filment would have been rendered impossible. If the life of Christ, 
his rejection by the Jews, and the mournful consequence, viz., the 
destruction of Jerusalem, had been described in the prophets as clearly, 
as literally, as connectedly, as circumstantially, and even for the 
carnally minded as intelligibly, as in the New Testament, the decree 
of redemption, which required the death of Christ, would never have 
been carried into effect. Even upon believers themselves, the obscurity 
which rests upon certain portions of prophecy, must have exerted a 
more beneficial influence than greater clearness would have done. 
If, for example, the Old Testament believers, who lived before the com- 
ing of Christ, had known that his appearance would be so long delayed, 
how greatly would this have tended to cool their love and cripple their 
hopes! How could the Messianic expectations, in this case, have be- 
come the center of their whole religious life? If the Christians of the 
first centuries had foreseen that the second coming of Christ would not 
take place for 1800 years, how much weaker an impression would this 
doctrine have made upon them than when they were expecting him 
every hour, and were told to watch, because he would come like a thief 
in the night, at an hour when they looked not for him? 

A considerable portion of the Messianic predictions were intended 
to produce an immediate effect upon the whole of the people, and to 
preserve at least its outward fidelity toward the Lord. But if prophecy 
had had all the clearness of history, this end would never have been 
realized. It was attained, on the other hand, by such an arrangement 
of the prophecies as made even a wilful misunderstanding salutary 
in its results. The people laid hold of the shell, and thought that they 



416 PROPHECY, CHARACTER OiP 

necessarily possessed the substance also. And this contributed to 
the maintenance of such outward conditions as were adapted to give 
life to the actual substance of the prophecies. If the question be 
asked, What end was answered by such of the prophecies as were ob- 
scure in themselves, and not merely in consequence of the carnal minds 
of the readers? it is a sufficient reply that the prophets did not utter 
the predictions for th^r contemporaries alone, but for posterity also, 
and the church of every age. Those portions which were clear, were 
amply sufficient for contemporaries. — " Chr'istology of the Old Testa- 
ment," E. W. Hengstenberg, Yol. lY, pp. 442, 443, translated from the 
German hy James Martin, B. A. Edinburgh: T. d- T. Clark, 1858. 

Prophecy, Miraculous Charactek of. — Prophecy is a miracle of 
knowledge, a declaration, or description, or representation of something 
future, beyond the power of human sagacity to discern or to calculate, 
and it is the highest evidence that can be given of supernatural com- 
munion with the Deity, and of the truth of a revelation from God. 
[p. 272] . . . 

To foresee and foretell future events is a miracle of which the 
testimony remains in itself. It is a miracle, because to foresee and fore- 
tell future events, to which no change of circumstances leads, no train 
of probabilities points, is as much beyond the ability of human agents 
as to cure diseases with a word, or even to raise the dead, which may 
properly be termed miracles of power. That actions of the latter kind 
were ever performed can be proved, at a distant period, only by wit- 
nesses, against whose testimony cavils may be raised, or causes for 
doubt advanced; but the man who reads a prophecy and perceives the 
corresponding event, is himself the witness of the miracle; he sees 
that thus it is, and that thus by human means it could not possibly 
have been. [p. 273] — "An Introduction to the Critical Study and 
Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.''' Thomas Hartioell Home, B. D.. 
Vol. I, pp. 212, 27 S. London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

Prophecy, Evidence of Prescience and Omniscience. — The plan 
of prophecy was so wisely constituted that the passions and prejudices 
of the Jews, instead of frustrating, fulfilled it, and rendered the person 
to whom they referred, the suffering and crucified Saviour who had been 
promised. It is worthy of remark that most of these predictions were 
delivered nearly, and some of them more than, three thousand years 
ago. Any one of them is sufficient to indicate a prescience more than 
human; but the collective force of all taken together is such that 
nothing more can be necessary to prove the interposition of Omni- 
science, than the establishment of their authenticity; and this, even at 
so remote a period as the present, we have already seen, is placed be- 
yond all doubt. For the books in which they are contained are known 
to have been written at the time to which, and by the persons to whom, 
they are respectively assigned, and also to have been translated into 
different languages, and dispersed into different parts, long before the 
coming of Christ. It is absurd, therefore, to suppose that any forgery 
with respect to them, if attempted by the first Christians, should not 
have been immediately detected; and still more absurd, if possible, to 
suppose that any passages thus forged should afterward have been ad- 
mitted universally into their Scriptures by the Jews themselves; who, 
from the first application of these predictions to Jesus Christ, have 
endeavored by every method to pervert their meaning. Surely, if the 
prophecies in question had not been found at that time in the writings 
to which the first propagators of Christianity appealed, the Jews needed 



PROPHECY, VALUE OP 417 

only to produce those writings in order to refute the imposition; and 
since no refutation was then attempted, it was a demonstration to the 
men of that age; and the same prophecies, being found there now, 
without the possibility of accounting for it if they were forged, convey 
in all reason as forcible a demonstration to ourselves at present, that 
they were written there from the beginning, and, consequently, by 
divine inspiration. — "An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowl- 
edge of the Holy Scriptures,'' Thoinas Hartwell Home, B. D., Vol. I, pp. 
g91, 29S. London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

Prophecy, Evide^tiai. Value of. — Of all the various lines of Chris- 
tian evidence, none is so specially adapted to these last days as that 
based on fulfilled prophecy, [p. v] . . . 

The prophecies of Daniel stand pre-eminent among all others in 
their evidential value. It is an astounding fact, that not only does 
his brief book give a foreview of twenty-five centuries of Jewish and 
Gentile history, including the first and the second advents of Christ, but 
that it also fixes the chronology of various episodes of the then unknown 
future, with a simple certainty which would be audacious if it were not 
divine. Would any mere man dare to foretell, not only a long succes- 
sion of events lying far in the remote future, but in addition the periods 
they would occupy? This Daniel has done, and the predictions have 
come to pass. 

This great and unquestionable fact can be explained away only on 
one of three grounds: 

1. The accord must be purely accidental and fortuitous; or 

2. The events must have been manipulated, so as to fit the pro- 
phecy; or 

3. The prophecy must have been fitted to the events, and thus 
written after them, though claiming to have been written before. 

None of these three explanations can account for the agreement be- 
tween Daniel's predictions and history, as a moment's refiection will 
show. 

1. It cannot be merely fortuitous. It is too far-reaching and de- 
tailed, too exact and varied. Chance might produce one or two coinci- 
dences of prediction and fulfilment out of a hundred, not a hundred or 
more without a single exception. Common sense perceives this at a 
glance. As far as time has elapsed every single point predicted in 
Daniel has come true, and there remain but a few terminal predictions 
to be fulfilled in the near future. 

2. The events were certainly not made to fit the prophecy by human 
arrangement. The rise and fall and succession of monarchies and of 
empires, and the conduct and character of nations, for over two thou- 
sand years, are matters altogether too vast to be manipulated by men. 
Such a notion is clearly absurd. What! did Babylonian and Persian 
monarchs, and Grecian and Roman conquerors, Gothic and Vandal in- 
vaders, medieval kings and popes, and modern revolutionary leaders, 
all intentionally conspire for long ages to accomplish obscure Jewish 
predictions, of which the majority of them never even heard? 

3. The third and last solution is consequently the only possible al- 
ternative to a frank admission of the divine inspiration of the book, 
and of the divine government of the world amid all its ceaseless politi- 
cal changes. Can the prophecy have been written to fit the events? In 
other words, can it be a forgery of a later date? This is the theory 
adopted by all the unbelieving critics, who start with the assumption 
that prophecy in any true sense is impossible. They attempt to assign 
to the book a date later than the true one, a date toward the close of 
the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, who died in the second century before 

27 



41^ PROPHECY FULFILLED 

Christ. They then endeavor to compress all the four empires into the 
four centuries previous to that date, excluding entirely from the proph- 
ecy any allusion to the Roman Empire and the first advent of Christ, 
to say nothing of the second. Multitudinous have been the att'acks 
made on these lines on the fortress of this book of Daniel, for skepti- 
cism has realized that while it stands impregnable, a relic of the sixth 
century before Christ, all rationalistic theories must fall to the ground, 
like Dagon before the ark. But the fortress stands firm as ever, its 
massive foundations revealed only the more clearly by the varied 
assaults it has repelled. — " Light for the Last Days," Mr. and Mrs. H. 
Grattan Guinness, Preface, pp. v-vii. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 
1893. 

Prophecy, Testimony of Fulfilled.— Many of the evidences for 
Christianity have been counterfeited by the supporters of false re- 
ligions and superstition. Thus, the miracles of Christianity have been 
imitated in the lying wonder of paganism and various forms of super- 
stition. The testimony derived from the constancy and zeal of martyrs 
has been mimicked by the heroism of the devotees of idol worship. 

But the testimony of fulfilled prophecy belongs alone (so far as 
concerns anything worthy of the name) to the revelation contained 
in the Holy Scriptures. For the ambiguity and obscurity of the heathen 
oracles are fatal to their claim of a divine origin. They are evidently 
nothing more than shrewd guesses into futurity, veiled in language capa- 
ble of many different senses. And if some of them might seem to show 
knowledge of a superhuman kind, this would not be surprising, when 
we recollect that many of them are probably due to satanic agency, and 
human intercourse with evil spirits. But there is a character of in- 
definiteness and imperfection stamped upon them all. The prophecies 
of Scripture, on the contrary, are definite and precise. They relate to 
events which no foresight of any created being could have anticipated. 
They extend into a remote future, distant many centuries from the 
period of their utterance. 

The fulfilment of such prophecies gives evidence of the strongest 
kind in favor of the divine origin of the religion with which they are 
connected. However much the proofs derived from other evidences may 
be weakened by supposed similar demonstrations in favor of other 
religious systems, the evidence of prophecy cannot be thus contested. 
Prescience of the future belongs to God alone. It arises out of those 
incommunicable attributes of the Godhead which can be shared by no 
created being. As the whole world of nature, so is the whole course of 
time, simultaneously present to his observation. He is omnipresent in 
all time equally as in all space. In the sublime language of the in- 
spired prophet, he "inhabits eternity." Isa. 57:15. And by this 
attribute the Godhead stands pre-eminently distinguished from all cre- 
ated beings. His power may be in a measure communicated to them. 
His loving-kindness they may be permitted to copy. His justice they 
may be allowed to imitate. But his eternal omnipresence is an attri- 
bute which admits of no degrees; for a partial omnipresence is a con- 
tradiction in terms. It belongs, therefore, to him alone. And it is only 
where this attribute is found in all its plenitude, that the future can be 
equally visible with the present. He alone who possesses it can call 
those things which be not, as though they were. 

Hence, in our text, the power of originating the word of prophecy 
is put forth as the irrefragable proof that he who possesses it is the 
supreme, the only God: "I am God," saith Jehovah by the prophet, 
" and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and 
from ancient times the things that are not yet done." [pp. 4, 5] . . . 



PROPHECY FULFIMiED 419 

The great subject of the word of prophecy is the person and work 
of Christ. " To him give all the prophets witness." From the earliest 
of the inspired records, the writings of Moses, down to the last book of 
the Old Testament, the chief object of the prophetic word was, to de- 
scribe the advent and character of the Saviour of mankind, the nature 
of his work, and the ultimate triumph of his kingdom over all oppo^' 
sition. 

The prophetic intimations on these points contained in the books of 
Moses are, in the comparison, as might be expected, indistinct and ob- 
scure. But as time advanced, the revelations made on the subject be- 
came more and more clear and definite, until at length the announce- 
ments of Isaiah and the other prophets, though preceding our Lord's 
advent by many centuries, gave a clear and even detailed account of 
the circumstances that were to attend and be the consequences of that 
event. 

And no further evidence is needed, that these prophecies were 
not written after the event, for the purpose of establishing the claims 
of Jesus Christ, than the fact that they have always been in the keep- 
ing of his great enemies, the Jews. 

Among the circumstances predicted of our blessed Lord many cen- 
turies before his advent are these: that he should be born of a virgin 
(Isa. 7: 14), and that he should spring from the family of David when 
reduced to the lowest state (Isa. 9: 6, 7, etc.) ; that he was to be born in 
Bethlehem (Micah 5: 2); that he was to come before the destruction 
of the second temple (Haggai 2: 6-9; Mai. 3: 1).; that he was to appear 
at a certain particular period, precisely pointed out by Daniel (Dan. 
9: 24-27); that his body was not to remain in the grave after death 
and see corruption (Ps. 16: 10) ; and that though he should pour out his 
soul unto death (Isa. 53: 12), his kingdom should be an everlasting 
kingdom (Isa. 9: 7, etc.) ; and the nations of the earth own him as their 
sovereign (Ps. 2:8; 72: 11; Dan. 7:14); that while he should be the 
"Desire of all nations" (Haggai 2: 7), he should yet be "despised and 
rejected of men, the man of sorrows and acquainted with grief" (Isa. 
53: 3) ; that he should bind up the broken-hearted, and proclaim liberty 
to the captives (Isa. 61: 1); and yet be brought as a lamb to the 
slaughter (Isa. 53: 7); that he should be at the same time the Child 
born and the Son given, and yet the mighty God and the Prince of 
Peace (Isa. 9: 6); that he should be David's Lord, and yet David's 
Son (Ps. 132: 11; 110: 1) ; that his soul should be made an offering for 
sin, and yet his days be prolonged (Isa. 53: 10). 

Thus, the word of prophecy was committed to predictions of the 
most distinct and definite kind respecting the person, character, and 
work of a great future Deliverer of mankind from the effects of the 
curse. And if we find, on a careful consideration of these predictions, 
that they were all exactly fulfilled in Jesus Christ, on what other 
hypothesis can we account for them, but that which supposes that they 
emanated from one who could " declare the end from the beginning, and 
from ancient times the things not yet done " ? [pp. 6, 7] — ■ " Fulfilled 
Prophecy" Rev. W. Goode, D. D., F. S. A., pp. 4-7, M edition. London: 
James Nisbet d Co., 1891. 

Prophecy, Four Classes of. — The prophecies recorded in the Scrip- 
tures respect contingencies too wonderful for the powers of man to con- 
jecture or to effect. Many of those which are found in the Old Testa- 
ment foretold unexpected changes in the distribution of earthly power; 
and whether they announced the fall of flourishing cities or the ruin of 
mighty empires, the event minutely corresponded with the prediction, 



420 PROPHECY, RATIONALISTIC HYPOTHESIS 

This chain of predictions is so evident in the Scriptures, that we are 
more embarrassed with the selection and arrangement of them, than 
doubtful of their import and accomplishment. To a superficial ob- 
server, they may seem to be without order or connection; but to a well- 
informed mind they are all disposed in such a mode and succession as 
to form a regular system, all the parts of which harmonize in one amaz- 
ing and consistent plan, which runs parallel with the history of man- 
kind, past, present, and to come; and furnishes a perfect moral 
demonstration that the book which contains such predictive informa- 
tion is indeed divine. The prophecies contained in the Scriptures may 
be referred to four classes, viz., prophecies relating to the Jewish na- 
tion in particular, prophecies relating to the neighboring nations or 
empires, prophecies directly announcing the Messiah, and prophecies 
delivered by Jesus Christ and his apostles. — "-An Introduction to the 
Critical Studu cmd Knowledge of the Holif Scriptures," Thomas Hart- 
well Home, B. D., Vol I, p. 280. London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

Prophecy, Rationalistic Hypothesis Answered. — Prophecy formed 
a necessary part of the economy of the Old Testament. Its position is 
assigned to it by the founder himself. In Deuteronomy 18 God declares 
through him, that he will raise up a prophet, that he will put words 
into his mouth, that they shall speak all that he shall command them, 
that whosoever will not hearken unto their words, which they shall 
speak in his name, he will require it of him. And thus do all the argu- 
ments, which attest the divine origin and divine superintendence of 
the Old Testament, speak against this [rationalistic] hypothesis. 

Again, this hypothesis falls to the ground with every special 
prophecy, whether Messianic or not, which can be shown to have been 
fulfilled. For if God acknowledged the prophets to be his servants In 
other instances, we have no right to pronounce the Messianic idea 
the mere oflispring of caprice. Whoever subscribes to this hypothesis 
must also consent to the forcible operations, by which rationalism' has 
endeavored to conceal the remarkable agreement between prophecy and 
its fulfilment. One single prediction, such as those of Jeremiah, re- 
specting the seventy years' captivity in Babylon and the fall of Babylon 
(chaps. 50 and 51), or such as Zechariah 9: 1-8, is amply sufficient to 
show the unfounded character of this view of prophecy, and therefore 
the unfounded character of the whole hypothesis. It is also opposed by 
everything which the prophets adduce in attestation of their divine 
mission; compare, for example, the confidence with which Isaiah 
promises to give to Ahaz a sign from the height above or from the 
depth (chap. 7), and the sign which he actually gives to Hezekiah 
(chap. 38). 

Again, the prophets themselves are most firmly convinced that they 
do not speak of their own caprice, but through the inward prompting 
of the Holy Spirit (compare, in addition to the frequently repeated 
expression, "Thus saith the Lord," Amos 3:7, "the Lord doeth 
nothing, he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets; " also 
vs. 8; Jer. 1: 9, 10; 20: 7 sqq.; . . . and in this conviction they cheer- 
fully endure all the sufferings which their prophecies bring upon them. 
The irresistible force of this conviction may be seen in the example 
of Jeremiah, and also in that of the earlier Micah (Micaiah) in 
1 Kings 22. 

To prophesy out of one's own heart, and on one's own account, was 
regarded by the prophets as an unmistakable mark of false prophecy. 
Jer. 14: 14; 23: 21; 27: 14, 15; 29: 9. From this they knew that they 
were separated by a wide gap. which rationalism has attempted in 



PROPHECY, RATIONALISTIC HYPOTHESIS 421 

vain to fill up. That the conviction of the prophets that they were the 
instruments of God, was a well-founded one, is attested by the im- 
posing attitude which they assumed for centuries in connection with 
the history of the nation. This attitude rationalism is utterly unable 
to explain, [pp. 376, 377] . . . 

Again, it is impossible to bring forward anything which leads to 
the conclusion that the prophets gave themselves up to sanguine hopes. 
On the contrary, when such hopes were indulged by every one else, 
and when the false prophets were sustaining them by fictitious prophe- 
cies, the prophets themselves, without heeding the danger which 
threatened them in consequence, fearlessly proclaimed the impending 
calamities (see, for example, Jeremiah 28). On the other hand, we 
have not the slightest indication that the false prophets, who en- 
deavored to make themselves agreeable to the nation by setting before 
it the brightest prospects, ever prophesied of the Messiah. They 
rather confined themselves to the immediate future. Jeremiah 28; 
1 Kings 22: 11; Micah 3: 5. The province of Messianic salvation, which 
was sacred from the very first, they never ventured to enter. 

Lastly, whenever Christ and the apostles mention the prophets, 
they speak of them as extraordinary messengers of God, who were 
moved by the Holy Ghost; and the doctrine, which is expressed with 
dogmatic emphasis in 2 Peter 1: 21, " Prophecy came not in old time by 
the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the 
Holy Ghost," is invariably taken for granted. 

This hypothesis is quite as directly at variance with the express 
declarations of Christ and his apostles respecting the Messianic prophe- 
cies. According to the hypothesis in question, the agreement between 
prophecy and its fulfilment was merely accidental. But Christ fre- 
quently declared that one of the designs of the events of his life was 
to fulfil the prophecies, and thus to attest his own divine mission. 
He proclaimed himself to be the Messiah foretold by the prophets, 
and gave expression to the conviction that everything which happened 
to him had been previously foretold by them. In Luke 24: 25 he 
reproves the disciples for their weak faith in the prophets, whereas 
according to the rationalistic hypothesis such faith was really a weak- 
ness. In Luke 24: 44 he explains to the apostles the prophecies in the 
books of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms, which refer to him. In 
numerous passages the apostles point out the agreement between 
prophecy and its fulfilment. In Acts 26:6 Paul speaks of the promise 
made to the fathers by God, whom the rationalists shut out altogether 
from the Messianic predictions. In the same manner Peter . . . smites 
rationalism directly in the face, by tracing the Messianic announce- 
ments to revelation ( d-rreKaXvcpdrj tapekalufthd'], 1 Peter 1: 12), which he 
contrasts with their inquiring and searching diligently, and which he 
ascribes to the spirit of Christ working in them (t6 iv avroh irpev/M xpi-<^Tov 
[to en autois pneuma Christou'\ 1 Peter 1: 11), in other words, to an 
infinite, supernatural source; whereas, according to the rationalistic 
hypothesis, the source from which they drew was their own minds, 
[pp. 377, 378] . . . 

It has always been admitted by orthodox theologians, that even 
history possesses a prophetic importance. By the side of the prophecies, 
strictly so called, they have recognized acted prophecies, or types. 
It is undeniable that " history is also prophecy. The past enfolds the 
present in the germ, and in particular points, which are discernible 
by the eye of the mind, the greater may be seen in the less, the inward 
in the outward, and the present or the future in the past." But it 
is perfectly obvious that verbal prophecy is the prerequisite and con- 



422 PROPHECY, GIFT OF 

dition of the acted prophecy, and that the type is " a subordinate kind 
of divine testimony, which merely serves to complete the word of the 
Spirit, from which at the same time light is thrown in return." With- 
out the light which it receives from prophecy, the type by itself cannot 
possibly be understood; and hence, for the whole of the long ages 
preceding the fulfilment, it would be entirely useless. Its reality must 
therefore be questionable, if the necessary condition of its efficiency 
could not be proved to exist. If the evident proof is not to be found 
in prophecy, that there is a God who rules above the world, and moves 
all events toward their ultimate destiny according to a preconcerted 
plan; then in the place of the type or the acted prophecy, we have 
nothing but a vague impulse, which cannot rest till that which exists 
already in the design has been fully worked out in history. Hence if 
prophecy, in the strict sense of the word, be overthrown, the acted 
prophecy, which is undoubtedly worthy of its name, must fall with it, 
and it is nothing but an illusion to attempt to elevate types at the 
expense of prophecy, [pp. 388, 389] — " Christology of the Old Testa- 
ment;' E. W. Hengstenberg, Vol. IV, pp. 376-378, 388, 389, translated from 
the German hy James Martin, B. A. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1858. 

Prophecy, Gift of. — The gift of prophecy included that of fore- 
sight and prediction, but it included more. The prophet was inspired 
to reveal the will of God, to act as an organ of com,munication between 
God and man. The subject of the revelations thus conveyed was not 
and could not be restricted to the future. It embraced the past and 
present, and extended to those absolute and universal truths which have 
no relation to time. This is what we should naturally expect in a divine 
revelation, and it is what we actually find it to contain. That the 
prophets of the old dispensation were not mere foretellers of things 
future, is apparent from their history as well as from their writings. 
It has been well said, that Daniel proved himself a prophet by telling 
Nebuchadnezzar what he had dreamed, as much as by interpreting the 
dream itself; that it was only by prophetic inspiration that Elijah knew 
what Gehazi had been doing; and that the woman of Samaria very prop- 
erly called Christ a prophet, because he told her all things that ever 
she did. In all these cases, and in multitudes of others, the essential 
idea is that of inspiration, its frequent reference to things still future 
being accidental, that is to say, not included in the uniform and neces- 
sary import of the terms. 

The restriction of these terms in modern parlance to the prediction 
of events still future has arisen from the fact that a large proportion of 
the revelations made in Scripture, and precisely those which are the 
most surprising and impressive, are of this description. The frequency 
of such revelations, and the prominence given to them, not in this mod- 
ern usage merely, t)ut in the word of God itself, admit of easy explana- 
tion. It is partly owing to the fact that revelations of the future would 
be naturally sought with more avidity, and treated with more deference, 
than any other by mankind in general. It is further owing to the fact 
that of all the kinds of revelation, this is the one which affords the 
most direct and convincing proof of the prophet's inspiration. The 
knowledge of the present or the past or of general truths might be im- 
parted by special inspiration, but it might also be acquired in other 
ways; and this possibility of course makes the evidence of inspiration 
thus afforded more complete and irresistible than any other. Hence the 
function of foretelling what was future, although but a part of the 
prophetic office, was peculiarly conspicuous and prominent in public 
view, and apt to be more intimately associated with the office itself in 
the memory of man. [pp. 1, 2] . . . 



PROPHECY, THE CHRIST OF 423 

The gift of prophecy was closely connected with the general design 
of the old economy. The foundation of the system was the law, as 
recorded in the five books of Moses. In that, as an epitome, the rest of 
the Old Testament is contained, at least as to its seminal principles. 
The single book of Deuteronomy exhibits specimens of almost every 
style employed by the sacred writers elsewhere. Still more remarkably 
is this true of the whole Pentateuch, in reference not merely to its man- 
ner but its matter, as comprising virtually all that is developed and ap- 
plied in the revelations of the later books. To make this development 
and application was the business of the prophets. The necessity for 
such an institution was no after-thought. The law itself provides for 
it. The promise of a prophet like unto Moses, in the eighteenth chapter 
of Deuteronomy, comprehends the promise of a constant succession of 
inspired men, so far as this should be required by the circumstances of 
the people, which succession was to terminate in Christ. 

This promise was abundantly fulfilled. In every emergency requir- 
ing such an interposition, we find prophets present and active, and in 
some important periods of the history of Israel they existed in great 
numbers. These, though not all inspired writers, were all inspired men, 
raised up and directed by a special divine influence, to signify and some- 
times to execute the will of God, in the administration of the theocracy. 
Joshua is expressly represented as enjoying such an influence, and is 
reckoned in the Jewish tradition as a prophet. The judges who suc- 
ceeded him were all raised up in special emergencies, and were directed 
and controlled by a special divine influence or inspiration. Samuel was 
one of the most eminent prophets. After the institution of the monar- 
chy, we read constantly of prophets distinct from the civil rulers. After 
the schism between Judah and Ephraim, there continued to be prophets, 
even in the kingdom of the ten tribes. They were peculiarly necessary 
there indeed, because the people of that kingdom were cut off from the 
sanctuary and its services, as bonds of union with Jehovah. The pro- 
phetic ministry continued through the Babylonish exile, and ceased 
some years after the restoration, in the person of Malachi, whom the 
Jews unanimously represent as the last of their prophets, [pp. 2, 3]— 
*' Isaiah Translated and Explained," Joseph Addison Alexander, Vol. I, 
pp. 1-3. New York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 1887. 

Prophecy, The Christ or. — We have treated the existing literature, 
and the several books of the Old Testament, as we should treat any 
other literary documents. We have endeavored to estimate them only 
as an honest examination of the features they present obliges us to 
estimate them. We have assumed nothing in their favor. We have 
conceded hypothetically almost every, if not every, position that has 
been debated, which might tend to modify the conclusion to be arrived 
at. And what is the result? It is this: that at least in the second cen- 
tury before Christ, and most probably in the sixth, the conception of a 
Messiah had attained so much consistency and solidity among the Jew- 
ish nation, that we find in writings of one period or the other, and for 
argument's sake it matters not which, a usage of the word which can 
only be understood of an ideal and a future person. Such an applica- 
tion of the term is conclusive proof of the popular existence of the 
notion. We are not concerned now with the character of the notion, 
or the form it had assumed. Here it was in actual and living reality. 
It was a thing which had found expression in a word. It was a thought 
which had become crystallized and formulated in speech. 

What was the origin of that thought? Taking the book of Daniel 
hypothetically, as the latest expression of it, we find it present to the 



42 4 PROPHECY, THE CHRIST OF 

national mind at a time of great national debasement. But it is far 
more probable that it had already been in existence for centuries. If it 
was not originally derived from the literature, we have no other means 
of tracing its origin but from the phenomena presented by the litera- 
ture; and there we can see, from time to time, germs of the same 
thought bursting through the soil of surrounding incident. From time 
to time the language used is such as to be more naturally explained 
with reference to this latent thought than to any other accidents of the 
age. The recurrence of this language is to be detected in the Psalms 
and prophets alone over a period of at least five hundred years. "Writer 
after writer takes it up, and deals with it in his own characteristic 
manner. David, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, 
Malachi, not to mention others, are all distinguished by passages which 
appear to have a common allusion to this same idea, and which, if they 
have, are more intelligible than if they have not. In all these re- 
markable passages there are characteristic features in common. There 
is a perpetual falling back upon the throne of Judah and the house 
of David; and this even after the throne was at an end, and the 
family no longer reigning. 

No such feeling is ever associated with any dynasty of Israel. It 
cannot be resolved into mere patriotism, because the same onward- 
looking hope is to be found equally when the throne is illustrious and 
when it is fallen. It consistently disdains the present, and is con- 
tinually projected into the distant future. No present glory is ade- 
quate; nothing less than endless duration and universal sovereignty 
is alike demanded and assured. No exaggeration of individual differ- 
ences is capable of destroying the combined harmony. Each writer 
worked independently, but the combined effect of the whole is unity, or 
at least the natural semblance of consistent unity. Such an effect, 
however, was manifestly beyond the reach of any series or succession 
of writers, because the earliest were ignorant of, and could not control, 
the utterances of those who wrote subsequently. And the utmost that 
the latest could do was to revert to an earlier thought, to develop and 
expand it. 

No reason, however, can be assigned for the correspondences, any 
more than for the differences, between the 22d Psalm and the 53d of 
Isaiah. It is impossible to say that the one borrowed from the other, 
or that the one suggested the conception of the other. And yet, looked 
at together, or if you will, in a particular light, there is an incompre- 
hensible unity. Are we to be debarred from pronouncing this unity real 
simply because it is incomprehensible? The mere appearance of unity 
that undeniably exists cannot be accounted for by any supposed simi- 
larity of condition and circumstances in the different writers, added to 
which no conceivable circumstances can adequately account for the 
language used. 

No adequate reason can be assigned for the correspondences, any 
more than for the differences, between the 21st Psalm and the 33d of 
Jeremiah. It is impossible to say that the one was borrowed from or 
suggested the other here; and yet, after the lapse of more than four 
centuries, there is a certain undeniable similarity. Was this similarity, 
such as it is, intentional on the part of the later writer? Was he 
bent upon producing the kind of effect and unity, which, looked at 
together with other productions, or in a particular aspect, his own work 
has produced? Was Ezekiel, when drawing his wonderful portrait of 
the faithful Shepherd, in his 34th and 37th chapters, late in the times 
of the captivity, and when the throne of Judah was no more, reverting 
merely to a former thought? or was he not rather adding important 



PROPHECY, A WITNESS 425 

elements of his own, the harmony and essential unity of which with 
the writings of other prophets he could not himself perceive, but 
which, after the lapse of many generations, it would he little less 
than wilful blindness to ignore? And are we in all these cases to reject 
that one particular aspect in which these independent and diverging 
rays are found to converge in a marvelous unity? Surely, rather, for- 
asmuch as the unity was one which the writers confessedly could not 
have agreed together to produce, while we can see for ourselves how 
striking and significant it is, the most natural and the not unreason- 
able inference will be to confess in the language of the psalmist of old: 
" This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes." — " The 
Religion of the Christ,'' Rev. Stanley Leathes, M. A., pp. 172-176. New 
York: Pott, Young & Co., 1874. 

Prophecy, A Witness to Christianity. — There are three classes of 
prophecy from the fulfilment of which the truth of revealed religion in 
general, and of the Christian in particular, might be deduced; namely, 
those of the Old Testament that relate to the ancient kingdoms and 
nations of the earth; those, likewise of the Old Testament, referring to 
the person and work of Christ; and those of the New Testament that 
concern events that were to occur in the postapostolic period of the 
church, [p. 110] . . . 

We are so accustomed from early childhood to hear and read the 
prophecies of the Old Testament respecting the person and work of 
Christ, that but few realize the true character and force of their testi- 
mony. Our very familiarity with them tends to make us overlook the 
distinguishing characteristics that give them their greatest weight. 

And I must add, that they are so generally regarded in their indi- 
vidual aspect, instead of being viewed as a whole, that more than half 
their force is lost by this dissociation of them from one another. They 
pervade the course of time with a full and flowing stream of testimony, 
taking its rise in the age of our first parents, and running onward in 
one continued stream for more than three thousand years. This testi- 
mony we must contemplate as a whole. One prophecy selected from 
that testimony is but as a small portion taken from a mighty river 
to show its resistless force. 

Many minds might hesitate to admit the force of one or another 
prophecy. Ingenious explanations may be resorted to by which the 
words of one or another prophecy may be made to appear applicable 
to other persons than Jesus of Nazareth, or other events than those 
that happened to him. But take the whole of the prophetic testimony 
relating to the future appearance of a mighty Deliverer and Saviour 
of mankind, and we see, not merely that there is no one else in whom 
the various prophecies find their fulfilment, but that in Jesus of Naza- 
reth all of them, even those that seemed most discordant and contra- 
dictory, had their complete and perfect accomplishment. 

In illustration of the general nature and character of the prophecies 
relating to the Messiah, let us mark, 

1. Their number and variety. 

They commence with the promise made to our first parents that 
the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. Gen. 3: 15. 
The evident reference to this prophecy in some of the traditions of the 
heathen nations, clearly shows that it was considered from the first 
as foreshadowing the appearance of a great future Deliverer of man- 
kind from the bondage of Satan. 

As time advanced, a far more clear and definite declaration was 
made to Abraham, who was set apart as the progenitor of a race sepa- 



426 PROPHECY, A WITNESS 

rated from the rest of mankind as God's peculiar people, from whom 
that mighty Deliverer was to spring in whom all the nations of the 
earth should be blessed. Gen. 22: 18. 

His grandson Jacob proceeded to specify the tribe from which the 
promised Deliverer should come, and when a stranger in Egypt, de- 
pendent with all his family upon the precarious favor of an idolatrous 
monarch, calmly and without doubt spoke of Judah's scepter, and its 
continuance until Shiloh came, unto whom the gathering of the people 
should be. Gen. 49 : 10. 

A few generations later, the great lawgiver of the Jewish people 
was commissioned to predict the Messiah's advent as a prophet, raised 
up from among them, like himself, but with more extensive i)ower 
and authority, whose hearers should incur the direct judgments of 
God for disobedience to his words. Deut. 18: 15-19. (Compare Acts 
3: 22 and 7: 27.) 

Proceeding onward to the time of David, we find the character 
and offices of the promised Deliverer foreshadowed in the book of 
Psalms with a clearness which has made that book the especial study 
of the Christian church for its revelations respecting the Messiah. 
In this book we see how, in the process of time, the vague and indistinct 
foreshadowings of a future Deliverer had gradually ripened into those 
distinct delineations of the person and office of the Messiah which 
afforded grounds of peace and joy to the Old Testament church. 

His state of humiliation on earth, his sufferings and death, his 
being laid in the grave but without seeing corruption, his resurrection 
and ascension, his victories over his enemies, the establishment of 
his kingdom in the earth, are all foreshadowed in terms which, however 
mysterious to the ancient Jewish church, have all been made abun- 
dantly plain by the fulfilment of the events they predicted. (See 
Psalms 16; 22; 40; 89; 118, etc.) 

Obscure, for instance, as the prophecy might be, that the stone 
which the builders should refuse should become the headstone of the 
corner (Ps. 118: 22), subsequent events proved it to be one of the 
most remarkable predictions of the promised Saviour, and one of the 
clearest proofs of the divine origin of the Old Testament prophecies. 

The revelations of the book of Psalms were succeeded by the testi- 
monies of a long line of prophets following one another at certain 
intervals, according to the good pleasure of God, bearing witness to 
the time and place of the appearance of the promised Deliverer, the 
character of his person and mission, and the events that were to befall 
him, with a clearness, precision, and minuteness that, in the case 
of some of them, have left the unbeliever no other alternative than 
the conjecture that they were written after the events of which they 
speak. 

It is impossible to contemplate the large number and variety of 
these prophecies without being struck with the stringency of the test 
thus afforded by the mercy of God to their divine origin, and conse- 
quently to the divine origin of our Lord's mission and the religion he 
came to establish. 

.. Let us glance at some of the more important among them. 
•■ V A virgin was to conceive and bear a son. Isa. 7: 14, Out of Bethle- 
hem Ephratah was he to come forth who was to be ruler in Israel. 
Micah 5: 2. Then the eyes of the blind were to be opened, and the ears 
of the deaf unstopped, the lame were to leap as a hart, and the tongue 
of the dumb to sing. Isa, 35: 5, 6.; Jerusalem's King, was to come, not 
in external pomp and splendor, such as human imagination would have 



PROPHECY, A AVITNESS 427 

clothed him with, but " lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt 
the foal of an ass." Zech. 9: 9. There was to be no beauty that men 
should desire him; he was to be despised and rejected of men, a man 
of sorrows and acquainted with grief; to be wounded for our transgres- 
sions and bruised for our iniquities, and cut off out of the land of the 
living, to have his grave with the wicked and to be with the rich in 
his death. Isa. 53: 2-9. Nevertheless he was to have dominion and glory 
and a kingdom, so that all people, nations, and languages should serve 
him, and his dominion was to be an everlasting dominion. Dan. 7: 
13, 14. 

On all these and various other characteristics of the person and 
offices of Christ, and the events that were to distinguish his mediatorial 
work, the testimonies of the prophets are clear and abundant. 

A failure, then, in any one of these prophecies would throw dis- 
credit upon the whole testimony. And all these were to be fulfilled in 
one person. What a test is thus afforded us of their divine origin! 
Is it possible to conceive any human power or agency by which such a 
series of predictions, so clear and definite, so particular and minute, so 
extensive and various, and so apparently inconsistent with each other, 
could be contrived? The powers of any created being may fairly be 
judged by the heathen oracles. And of these it may be safely said, that 
their brevity and ambiguity clearly showed the source from which they 
emanated. But the prophecies we are now considering are of a totally 
different character. 

There is also another consideration to which I would call your at- 
tention. For what purpose should all these various prophecies have 
been delivered by man, if they had not emanated from a divine source? 
How should it enter into the mind of man that such a person as the 
Messiah should come into the world? The predictions of the heathen 
oracles related to persons or states or circumstances to which the at- 
tention of mankind had already been directed. But the prediction of a 
great future Deliverer, such as the Messiah was to be, was one to which 
no earthly events or circumstances could lead the mind. The necessity 
for his appearance was grounded upon considerations alien from the 
thoughts and feelings of mankind. The work of suffering he was to 
accomplish was so little in accordance with human notions that even the 
people who had the oracles of God in their hands, distinctly foretelling 
the nature of that work, so little recognized it as belonging to the Sav- 
iour of mankind, that they were the unconscious instruments for fulfill- 
ing it. His mission and work, so far as they were of a spiritual nature, 
were altogether beyond the unassisted reason of man to imagine. 

Let us observe — 

2. The long period of time during which these prophecies were 
delivered. 

They were not confined to one generation, or even to one race. For 
more than three thousand years from the period of the fall were proph- 
ecies of this nature delivered at various intervals to the world. 

Amid all the changes and revolutions through which the earth and 
its inhabitants passed during that long period, including the rise and 
fall of various empires, one unvaried prophecy, renewed and amplified 
as time advanced, held out to our fallen race the hope of future bless- 
ings/ in the advent of a mighty Deliverer from the curse entailed on us 
by the disobedience of our first parents. 

Had it been of man, it is impossible to conceive that it should have 
held its ground during so long a period of time. But not only did it 
hold its ground, but, as age after age rolled away without any apparent 



428 PROPHECY, A WITNESS 

prospect of its fulfilment, it only increased in the boldness and pre- 
cision and fulness of its announcements. 
We must notice — 

3. The number and diversity of those who delivered these proph- 
ecies. 

The earliest are those recorded by Moses as having been delivered 
by God himself to Adam and Abraham. The rest were delivered by the 
mouths of persons of various grades and positions in society, — patri- 
archs, prophets, priests, and kings, — between whoih, for the most part, 
no intercommunion of any kind could have existed. We have even the 
testimony of Israel's enemy, Balaam, to add to that of the Jewish 
prophets, as to the rise of a mighty Deliverer from the offspring of 
Jacob. Num. 24: 17. 

And these various prophets, we must observe, did not merely repeat 
the same prophecy, but in almost all cases there is some part of the 
prophecy, uttered by each, peculiar to the particular prophet by whom 
it was delivered. Their prophecies are not copied from one another. 
There is something in each to show that it came fresh from that orig- 
inal Source from which the first intimation arose, and from which 
further light was communicated at the pleasure of him from whom all 
emanated. 

But more especially should we note — 

4. The minuteness of detail into which many of these prophecies 
enter. 

My purpose here is merely to point out some of the chief prophecies 
that are marked by this characteristic. A more fitting opportunity 
will occur to trace the accuracy of their fulfilment. 

Thus the price at which the Messiah's life should be estimated, and 
the very purpose to which that price should be subsequently applied, 
are distinctly foretold by the prophet Zechariah: " They weighed for 
my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it 
unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them." Zech. 
11: 12, 13. 

Again, the indignities to be offered to him are thus minutely speci- 
fied. The prophet Isaiah, speaking in the person of the Messiah, says, 
" I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked 
off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting." Isa. 50: 6. 

" They part my garments among them," says the word of prophecy, 
"and cast lots upon my vesture." Ps. 22: 18. 

A bone of him was not to be broken (Ps. 34: 20), but nevertheless 
he was to be pierced (Zech. 12: 10). 

He was to make his grave with the wicked, and yet to be with the 
rich in his death, because he had done no violence, neither was any 
deceit in his mouth. Isa. 53: 9. 

Thus, the prophetic statements respecting the Messiah shrunk not 
from the minutest details as to what was to happen to him. 

The exactness of their fulfilment we shall hereafter point out. 

Lastly, we must not fail to observe — 

5. The seemingly contradictory character of some of these proph- 
ecies, while nevertheless they all found their fulfilment in Jesus of 
Nazareth. 

Thus, the Messiah was to be David's son (Ps. 132: 11, 17, etc.), and 
yet David's Lord (Ps. 110: 1), an enigma which our Lord himself in 
vain proposed to the Jews for their solution. Matt. 22: 41-46. 

He was to be laid in the grave, and yet not to see corruption. 
Ps. 16: 10. 



PROPHECIES, DESIGN OF 429 

Even when his soul was to be made an offering for sin, he was at 
that very time to see his seed and to prolong his days, and the pleasure 
of the Lord to prosper in his hand. Isa. 53: 10. 

He was to be the Desire of all nations (Haggai 2:7), and yet to 
be despised and rejected of men (Isa. 53: 3); the messenger of the 
covenant whom the Jews "delighted in" (Mai. 3:1), and yet one 
"whom man despiseth;" "whom the nation [i. e., of the Jews] ab- 
horreth" (Isa. 49: 7). 

He was to be a king, the glories of whose kingdom should exceed 
those of all the empires on earth, and last forever (Psalms 72; 89: 27, 
29, 36, etc.); and yet to be the man of sorrows and acquainted with 
grief, wounded, bruised, and ignominiously put to death (Isa. 53": 3, 7). 

Well might the faith of the Old Testament church find it diflBcult to 
realize the possibility of the fulfilment of all these apparently conflict- 
ing predictions in one individual. But in him whom we worship as our 
Saviour, we see ... all these various prophecies exactly fulfilled. The 
apparent contradiction only gives weight to their evidence in the testi- 
mony it affords us of the superhuman character of their Source. 

True, his kingdom is not yet established in all its promised glory; 
but when we look around us and see what have even already been the 
triumphs of the cross of Christ, we cannot doubt that all that remains 
to be fulfilled will be accomplished in its season. 

We thus see, then, the general nature and character of that prophetic 
testimony to the Messiah, which has been so clearly and precisely ful- 
filled in him whom we adore as our Lord. And to that fulfilment of 
prophecies so many and various, so definite and precise, so circumstan- 
cial and minute, so abounding with stringent tests of its faithfulness, 
we point the unbeliever with confidence, as evidence of the truth of 
Christianity, leaving him utterly without excuse for its rejection. — 
''Fulfilled Prophecy;' Rev. W. Qoode, D. D., F. S. A., pp. 110-118, M 
edition. London: James Nisbet d Co., 1891. 

Prophecies, Design of Messianic. — The principal design of the 
Messianic prophecies was to prepare in such a way for the coming of 
Christ, that, when he should come, he might at once be recognized from 
a comparison of prophecy with its fulfilment. And the very fact that, 
notwithstanding this preparation, the greater portion of the people 
failed to recognize him, is in itself a proof of its necessity. As it was, 
the only persons who did not receive him were such as had lost their 
capacity for an impartial examination of prophecy and history, through 
their ungodliness of mind. But if there had been no signs at all, the 
recognition would have been rendered infinitely difllcult even to the 
upright in heart. The importance of the Messianic prophecies from 
this point of view is attested by New Testament authorities. When 
John the Baptist says, in John 1: 20, " I am not the Christ," he points 
to Jesus as the Christ. As Bengel says, " By thus limiting his speech 
... he gives a handle to the thought which suggests itself, that the 
Christ is not far off." He speaks of him with evident allusion to the 
prophecies of the Old Testament, as " he, who coming after him was 
before him" (vs. 27, 30), and with a reference to Isaiah 53 as "the 
Lamb of God." Andrew, his disciple, on the strength of what he has 
heard from him, says to his brother Simon in verse 41, "We have 
found the Messiah." 

It is true that Christ himself teaches that the first prerequisite to 
a recognition of himself is a certain state of mind, which creates a 
susceptibility for the outward proofs of his divine mission (John 
7: 17), and traces the unbelief of the Jews to the fact that this is not 



430 PROPHECIES, DESIGN OF 

their state of mind (John 5: 39-47), He represents himself as the 
promised Messiah, in John 4: 25, 26; Matt. 26: 63, 64, and 11: 3 sqq. 
In Luke 24: 25, 26, he reproves the apostles as being "fools and slow 
of heart," because they do not discern the harmony between prophecy 
and its fulfilment, which is so conspicuous in his history. In Luke 
24: 45 he is said to "open their understanding" that they may under- 
stand " the prophecies relating to his person," and in this way to 
strengthen their faith. He sets forth these prophecies in various ways, 
describing their great importance as the force by which history is de- 
termined, in such words as these, " Thus it is written," and " Thus it 
must be." Luke 24: 26, 46; and Matt. 26: 54. 

The importance which he attached to the agreement between 
prophecy and its fulfilment, as forming part of his credentials, is ap- 
parent from the fact that on the occasion of his last entry into Jeru- 
salem, he arranged all the incidents in such a way as to insure an 
exact correspondence to the statements of prophecy. Matt, 21: 1 and 
John 12: 12-16. The first of the evangelists brings forward proofs at 
the very outset, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah promised in the 
Old Testament. This was the problem that had first of all to be 
solved. That Jesus was the Christ was one of the leading topics in the 
preaching of the apostles. Acts 3: 18; 10: 43; 1 Cor. 15: 3, 4; 2 Cor. 
1: 20. In Acts 26: 22 Paul claims to obtain a hearing for his preaching 
of the gospel on the ground that he says nothing but what Moses 
and the prophets have already foretold; and in verse 27 he expressly 
asserts that whoever believes the prophets must of necessity believe in 
Christ as well. 

There can be no doubt, therefore, as to the great importance of the 
Messianic prophecies, so far as the people of the Old Testament were 
concerned. But the question still remains whether they are of the 
same importance to the the Christian church. To this question an 
aflBrmative reply has been constantly and decidedly given, [pp. 264, 
265] . . . 

The question of primary importance here is whether there are 
really any Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. Schleiermacher 
answers this in the negative. He found nothing but indefinite pre- 
sentiments, utterances of a subjective consciousness of the need of 
redemption, " a yearning of human nature for Christianity," such as 
may be proved to have existed in heathenism as well. In making such 
an assertion, he placed himself in decided antagonism to the authority 
of Christ and his apostles. For it is evident, not only from the passages 
just quoted, but from many others which have been referred to in the 
course of this work, that they did acknowledge the existence of actual 
prophecies in the Scriptures. And the fallacy of the( assertion is quite 
as apparent, if we examine the prophecies themselves. We have brought 
forward proofs that the Scriptures contain a long series of genuine 
prophecies. Compare, for example, what has already been observed 
with reference to Zechariah's description of the future. Compare also 
Daniel 9, where the anointing of Christ with the Holy Ghost, his death, 
the forgiveness of sins to be secured by him, and the judgment to be 
executed on Jerusalem by a foreign prince, are announced. The nation 
from which the Redeemer is to arise, is foretold in the Old Testament, 
and even the tribe (Genesis 49 and other passages), the family (first 
of all in 2 Samuel 7), the place (Micah 5), and the time of his birth, 
viz,, during the period of the political existence of Judah, previous to 
the destruction of the second temple (Haggai), in the time of the 
fourth monarchy (Daniel 2:7), and in the seventieth week (Daniel 9), 
The prophets point out clearly and distinctly the condition of both 



PROPHECIES, DESIGN OF 431 

the family and nation at the time of the coming of Christ, and fully 
agree in predicting that before that event all the glory of Israel will 
pass away, the tabernacle of David fall into ruins (Amos 9: 11), and 
the line of David sink into the obscurity of private life. 

The prophets foretell that with Christ's coming a new spiritual and 
vital principle will begin to work in the human race (Joel 3; Jer. 
31: 31-40; Eze. 11: 19), and history has confirmed the announcement, 
" All nations," says Paschal, " were sunk in infidelity and concupi- 
scence; but the whole earth now burned with charity, princes forsook 
their glory, and girls endured martyrdom. Whence came this power? 
The Messiah had arrived." The prophets also place in connection with 
the coming of Christ a severe judgment upon Judah and its expulsion 
from the Lord's own land (e. g., Zechariah 5 and 11; Malachi 3). 
The fulfilment is before our eyes, as well as that of the prophecies 
which announce the spread of the kingdom of God among the heathen 
in the days of the Messiah, such for example as Ezekiel 17: 22-24 
and Malachi 1 : 11, " from the rising of the sun unto the going down 
of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles." 

Again, the assertion that an agreement between the prophecies 
and the actual result, in matters of detail, is of no importance what- 
ever, is no more reconcilable with the authority of Christ and the 
apostles, than the denial of the existence of genuine prophecies. For 
if this be the case, why is the harmony between prophecy and ful- 
filment expressly pointed out in connection with the most remarkable 
circumstances of the life of Christ? WTiy did Christ explain to his 
apostles, after his resurrection, the passages in all the Scriptures re- 
lating to his sufferings and glory? Why did he add, after saying to 
his disciples, " All ye shall be offended because of me this night," 
" for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock 
shall be scattered abroad"? Matt. 26: 31. Why did he say to the 
disciples (v. 54), "How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?" and 
to the crowd (v. 56), "All this was done that the Scriptures of the 
prophets might be fulfilled " ? He that is of the truth will listen in 
this matter to the voice of him who has said, " I am the truth," 

In Schleiermacher's views were correct, how could it be recorded 
of the people at Berea as a thing deserving praise, that they carefully 
compared the gospel statements with the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
ment, " searching the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so " ? 
Philip would rather be deserving of blame for founding his address to 
the treasurer of Queen Candace upon Isaiah 53. If it was a matter 
of importance to that age that the perfect agreement between prophecy 
and fulfilment should be clearly demonstrated, it is of no less impor- 
tance now. This is obvious from the fact that the apostles themselves 
do not attach importance to it, solely when they have to do with Jews, 
but also when writing and preaching to the Gentiles. In the present 
day, not merely the great mass of the Jews, but also a great portion of 
those who are living in outward fellowship with the Christian church, 
are in just the same condition as the Jews of the time of Christ. 
They have no true knowledge of Christ, but have yet to learn to 
know him. It is true that this knowledge can no more be obtained 
by them from the Messianic prophecies alone, than by the Jews of 
that day. On the contrary, external evidence of the truth of Chris- 
tianity, whatever its objective validity may be, can never accom- 
plish anything without the existence of the only state of mind that can 
create a susceptibility for the impression, which evidence of this descrip- 
tion is fitted to produce. But where this state of mind does exist, a 



432 



PROPHECIES, MESSIANICALLY APPLIED 



perception of the harmony between prophecy and fulfilment may pro- 
duce the most beneficial results, [pp. 266-268] . . . 

The really classical passage of the New Testament, by which this 
thoroughly abnormal and unchristian theory of Schleiermacher is 
completely refuted, is contained in 2 Peter 1: 19-21, a passage the depth 
of which is a sufficient proof of its apostolical origin. " We have," 
says the apostle, " a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well 
that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until 
the day dawn, and the daystar arise in your hearts :' knowing this first, 
that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, 
for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men 
of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The Messianic 
prophecies (that the " word of prophecy " relates especially to these is 
evident from the connection with what precedes) are of even greater 
importance to Christians than to Jews. The word of prophecy is to 
them a surer word, since they can compare the predictions with the 
fulfilment. The apostle's preaching of Christ did not rest upon arbi- 
trary speculations, but, according to verse 16, upon the fact that the 
apostles were " eyewitnesses of his majesty." From these historical 
facts, the word of prophecy acquired still greater firmness and im- 
portance. 

For this reason it is doubly advantageous to Christians to pay 
attention to those things from which Schleiermacher attempted with 
all his might to draw away the church of Christ. The apostle does 
not say, " Ye did well," but " Ye do well." It is not Jews but Chris- 
tians whom he praises for giving heed to the word of prophecy, and that 
not merely as the foundation of faith, but also as the means of 
strengthening their belief, [p. 270] — "Christology of the Old Testament," 
E. W. Hengstenderg, VoL IV, pp. 264-270, translated from the OerTnan 
hy James Martin, B. A. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1858. 

Prophecies, Chief Prophecies in the Minor Prophets Which Are 

MESSIANICALLY APPLIED, OR OTHERWISE REFERRED TO IN THE NeW^ TESTA- 
MENT. — " The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Rev. 19 : 10. 



Hosea 1: 10; 2: 23 
" 3: 5 
" 10: 8 
" 11: 1 

" 6: 2 

" 13: 14 
Joel 2: 28, 29 

" 2: 32 
Amos 9: 11 

Obadiah 21 
Jonah 



Micah 2: 12, 13 
" 5: 1, 2 

" 4: 8 



Call of the Gentiles 

Return of Israel to David 

their king 
Calling to the mountains and 

rocks 
" Out of Egypt have I called 

my Son." 
" On the third day " 
Death and Sheol 
The outpouring of the Spirit 
Call of the Gentiles 
Restoration of Tabernacle of 

David 
Jehovah's kingdom 
The signs of the prophet 

The typical resurrection 
The Kaipol idvCiv 

Messiah's kingdom 
Bethlehem-Ephratah 

Migdal-Eder 



Rom. 9: 25; Matt. 

9: 31 
1 Peter 2: 10 

Luke 23: 30 

Matt. 2: 15 

1 Cor. 15: 4 
1 Cor. 15: 55 
Acts 2: 17 
Rom. 10: 13 
Acts 15: 16 

Luke 1: 33 

Matt. 16: 4; Luke 

11: 30 
Matt. 12: 40 
Luke 21: 24 
Rom. 7: 26 
Matt. 2: 5, 6; John 

7: 42 
Luke 24: 47 



PROPHET, WORDS FOR 



433 



Micah 7: 6 


Variance in homes 


Matt. 20:35; Mark 






13: 12 


Nahum 1: 7 


" The Lord knoweth them that 
are his " 


2 Tim. 2: 19 


Hab. 2: 3, 4 


To ipx^iJ^vos ^yev. LXX 


Heb. 10: 37 


" 2: 4 


"" The just shall live by faith " 


Gal. 3: 11 


Zeph. 3: 15 


The king of Israel 


John 1: 49 


Haggai 2: 6-9 


The shaking of the nations 


Heb. 12: 26 


2: 21-23 


Promise to Zerubbabel 


Luke 3: 27 


Zech. 3: 8 


The Branch 


Luke 1: 78 


" 6: 13 


The crowned Priest 


Phil. 2: 5-11; Heb. 
6: 20 


" 8: 23 


Final glory of Israel 


Acts 8: 47, 48 


" 9: 9 


The lowly King 


Matt. 21: 4, 5; 
John 12: 14-16 


" 11: 12, 13 


Betrayal of the Good Shepherd 


Matt. 27: 9 


" 12: 3 


The stone of stumbling 


Matt. 21: 44 


" 12: 8 


Exaltation of David's house 


Luke 2: 4 


" 12: 10 


Men shall look unto Me, whom 
they have pierced 


John 19: 37 


" 13: 1 


The cleansing fountain 


Rev. 1: 5 


" 13: 7-9 


Fate of the Shepherd of the 


Matt. 26: 31; 




sheep 


Mark 14: 27 


" 14: 9 


Jehovah's kingdom 


John 10: 16; Rev. 
11: 15 


" 14: 20 


Universal holiness 


Rev. 21: 27 


Mai. 1: 11 


The universal offering 


Rev. 8: 3, 4 


" 3: 1 


The Messenger of the covenant 


Mark 1:2; Luke 
1: 76; 7: 27 


" 4: 1-3 


The day of the Lord 


Matt. 3: 12; Rev. 

1: 7 
Matt. 11: 14; 17: 


" 4: 5 


Elijah the prophet 






12; Mark 9: 13; 






Luke 1: 17 



— " The Minor Prophets,'" Rev. F. W. Farrar, D. D. 
245. New York:- Anson D. F. Randolph & Co. 



F. R. 8., pp. 2U, 



Prophet, WoBDS for. — The commonest Hebrew word for prophet is 
Nabt (N*"?^), which occurs some three hundred times in the Old Testa- 
ment, and must be regarded as the normal designation in all ages. It is 
true that from 1 Samuel 9 : 9 we might infer, at first sight, that JSIahi was 
a later term than Roeh (r;^"l), seer; but the meaning of that passage 

must be interpreted by the fact that Islaht is found long before Samuel's 
time, whereas Roeh is not. [p. 1] . . . 

Unfortunately, the derivation of Nabt is highly uncertain. It does 
not seem to have been a genuine Hebrew word at all, and was perhaps 
borrowed from the Canaanites. Gesenlus, indeed, derives it from ^2^, 

" to bubble up;" and he thus ingeniously connects it with Ndtaph C"*^^), 

which properly means " to drop," but which is used by three prophets 
to symbolize the utterance of prophecy. Fleischer makes it mean 
" spokesman." Ewald, too, connects it with an Arabic root meaning 
"to speak clear;" but perhaps the Arabic may also have borrowed the 
word from some Canaanite source, or may simply have formed the 
verb from the Hebrew Nahi. 

The word Roeh indicates that the prophet is one who, like Balaam, 
" sees in a trance, having his eyes open;" one to whom is granted "the 

28 



434 PROPHET, WORDS FOR 

vision and the faculty divine;" one who has been "illuminated in the 
eyes of his mind;" one who, amid the darkness of the present, sees with 
spiritual intuition the eternal hopes of the future; one whose spirit is 
quick-eared to hear God's intimations, and who, being pure in heart, 
enjoys the beatitude of seeing God, 

The word Chozeh, " seer," has a similar significance. The verb 
chazah, "to see," cannot be a mere synonym of raah, "to see;" but in 
ordinary usage does not perceptibly differ from the latter verb in sense, 
though it is more poetical, Chozeh occurs twenty-two times in the Old 
Testament, and is applied to Gad, Heman, Iddo, Hanani, Asaph, Jedu- 
thun, and Amos. It occurs chiefly in the books of Chronicles. Roeh, 
on the other hand, occurs but ten times, and in seven of these it is 
used as the designation of Samuel. There can be no great difference 
between the meaning of the two words, since Hanani, for instance, is 
called both a Roeh and a Chozeh. On the other hand, there must appar- 
ently have been some distinction in the popular mind, for in 1 Chronicles 
29: 29 we are told that the acts of David are written in the book of 
Samuel the Roeh, and in the book of Nathan the Nadi, and in the book 
of Gad the Chozeh. Both Roeh and Chozeh, however, mean one who, in 
the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, is "the initiated observer and inter- 
preter of the great mysteries." 

In the Greek versions the word 7rpo0ijTr;s Iprophetes'] (prophet) is 
used to render each of these three terms. It cannot be accepted as 
throwing any original light upon the conception of prophecy, for proph- 
ecy was an intermittent phenomenon, and this Greek name did not 
originate until long after the voice of genuine prophecy had fallen 
silent. It is, however, valuable as expressing the fundamental view of 
prophetic functions which was prevalent among the learned Jews of 
Alexandria three centuries before Christ. 

A " prophet," in modern popular usage means predominantly one 
who foretells the future, — who predicts events which could be only 
known to him by miraculous revelation. By the " argument from proph- 
ecy " is usually meant the evidence for the divine origin of Christianity, 
derived from the foreknowledge exhibited by the prophets of the Old 
Testament. But this argument requires a careful restatement if it is 
to stand the light of modern criticism. The definite announcement of 
events yet distant is but a small, a subordinate, and an unessential part 
of the prophet's mission. Elijah was a great prophet, yet he uttered 
no prediction which did not concern the immediate present, unless his 
announcements of the drouth and of the destiny of Ahab and Jezebel 
be reckoned as predictions; on the other hand, neither Samuel nor John 
the Baptist, though among the greatest of the prophets, foretold the 
distant future. The attempts to declare the issues of the future be- 
longed rather to the priests with their Urim and Thummim, which 
would not have become obsolescent unless it had fallen into suspicion 
and contempt. The prophets were no mere augurs or monthly prognos- 
ticators. The work for which they were called was nobler and more 
divine; and when that work was sketched out to them in the hour of 
their call, the power of definite prediction is not dwelt upon. They were 
statesmen, they were moral teachers, they were spiritual guides. 

The connotation which makes the word " prophecy " identical with 
"prediction" is partly due to a false etymology. Upo(l)i^TT]s \_prophefes'] 
is not derived from irpo^alvb) [prophainoj, " 1 reveal," i)ut from wpb Ipro} 
and (pvi^i [phemi] and the preposition irph [pro] in this compound, did 
not originally mean "beforehand." A prophet, is not, so much a " fore- 
teller " as a " forth-teller." The Greek word means one who interprets 
another, and especially one who is an interpreter of God. This is the 



PROPHET, WORDS FOR 43 5 

proper and all but invariable meaning of the word in classic Greek. 
" Apollo," says ^schylus, " is the prophet of Zeus " — ^n other words, 
he interprets the decrees of Zeus. Similarly, Euripides calls Orpheus 
the prophet of Bacchus, and Glaucus the prophet of Nereus; and the 
Pythian priests and priestesses were called "prophets," because they 
explained the rapt utterances of the seers ( /xavreis Imanteis']) , who spoke 
in ecstasy. So, too, the poets are called interpreters. " Utter thy 
strains, O Muse," says Pindar, "and I will be thy prophet." 

How completely this meaning, and not that of vaticination, is pre- 
dominant in the Scriptures, is clear from Exodus 7:1,2: " See, I have 
made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy 
prophet" — in other words, "thy interpreter;" or (as it is expressed in 
Exodus 4: 16) "he shall be thy spokesman unto the people, and he shall 
be to thee a mouth." And God says to Jeremiah (Jer. 15: 19), "Thou 
Shalt be as my mouth." Nor is this point of view superseded even in 
the Apocrypha and the New Testament. In Genesis 20: 7 Abraham is 
called " a prophet," though it was not his function to predict, but he 
was, like Noah, "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2: 5) and "a 
friend of God." And though the wisdom which can see the future in 
the germs of the present is so naturally an endowment of the illumi- 
nated soul that definite prediction — almost always of events already 
upon the horizon — is not excluded from the sphere of a prophet's work; 
yet it is clear, both from the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles, that 
the prophets of the New Testament were, in the main, and some of them 
exclusively, moral and spiritual teachers, [pp. 2-5] . . . 
u, In general, then, it is of the deepest importance, for any genuine 
comprehension of the prophets in their real grandeur, to see that they 
were preachers of righteousness, statesmen and patriots, enlightened to 
teach to an ever-apostatizing nation — 

" What makes a nation great, and keeps it so, 
- What ruins kingdoms, and lays cities flat." 

irliey' were "messengers of Jehovah" (Hag. 1:13), "men of God" 
(1 Sam. 2: 27), "men of the Spirit" (Hosea 9: 7). They uttered "the 
word of Jehovah," " what Jehovah saith." In all their deepest an- 
nouncements they could say, with an almost oppressive consciousness 
of responsibility, " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me." There was a 
sense in which " all the Lord's people were prophets," as Moses had 
desired that they should be, when Joshua, with affectionate jealousy, 
would fain have checked the voices of Eldad and Medad. The greatest 
prophets looked forward to a time when, as Joel prophesied, Jehovah 
would "pour out his Spirit upon all flesh;" and when, in the aspiration 
of Jeremiah, " they shall no more teach every man his neighbor, and 
every man his brother, saying. Know the Lord; for all shall know me 
from the least to the greatest." But until that day should come, the 
prophets rightly felt themselves to be the special and divinely appointed 
Warners and teachers of their people, [pp. 8, 9] . . . 

Three characteristics mark the efforts and position of the Hebrew 
prophets : 

1. First, we must place the heroic faith which looks beyond the 
little grandeurs and transitory aims of the average man. Most men 
shrink from braving danger, exposing falsehood, fighting against wrong. 
They swim with the stream. They spread their sails to the veering 
wind. They look on success as the end of living, and on popularity as 
the test of truth. Not so the prophets. Their vision pierced beyond the 
vain shows and passing pageantry of life. In Egypt, Syria, Assyria, 
Babylon, Persia, Rome, they only saw in outline dim and vast — 



436 PROPHET, WORDS FOR 

" The giant forms of empires on their way 
To ruin." 
Kings, priests, mobs, were but weak men; that which was arrogantly 
paraded as the majesty of public opinion meant to them but the shout 
of the noisiest and the vote of the most ignorant; they believed that 
"one with God is always in a majority;" they "swallowed formulae;" 
they flung to the winds the false types of goodness, and the false types 
of orthodoxy which satisfied the somnolent average of religious teachers 
in their day; they would not deceive for reward or promotion; they 
would not lie for God, One form of summons might have served to 
describe their common call and lifelong martyrdom; " Gird thy loins 
and arise and speak unto them; ... be not dismayed at their faces: 
. . . behold, I have made thee a fenced city, an iron pillar, and brazen 
wall against the whole land — against the kings, against the princes, 
against the priests, against the people. . . . And they shall fight against 
thee; but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am with thee, saith 
the Lord." 

2. Secondly, the prophets are the most conspicuous teachers of 
spiritual religion. In the happy phrase of Professor Kuenen, "ethical 
monotheism " is the main, as it is the inestimably precious, contribution 
of the Hebrew prophets to the spiritual advance and eternal elevation of 
the race. The priests . . . failed to apprehend that the one end and 
aim of religion is righteousness; that a religion consisting exclusively 
of ceremonies, a religion divorced from morality, is no religion at all. 
It is the protest against this idolatry of the outward function which 
marks the theology of the prophets. " Behold, obedience is better than 
sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams," said Samuel. " I 
despise your feast days, and will not smell in your solemn assemblies," 
was the message of the Lord by Amos. " I desired mercy and not sac- 
rifice, and the knowledge of the Lord more than burnt offerings," said 
Hosea, in words which our Lord loved to quote. "What doth the 
Lord require of thee," asks Micah, " but to do justly, and to love mercy, 
and to walk humbly with thy God? " " Bring no more vain oblations," 
says Isaiah, " but wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your 
doings from before mine eyes." " The just," says Habakkuk, in words 
which were the keynote of the theology of St. Paul, " shall live by faith." 
Thus did the prophets, one after another, make light of the pompous 
religionism of offerings and ceremonial, and anticipate the teaching of 
the Son of God. " Not every one that saith unto me. Lord, Lord, shall 
enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my 
Father which is in heaven." 

3. If the prophets had delivered no other message than this, — that 
righteousness is the test of sincerity, — they would have done a mighty 
work. And in this sense Israel became a prophetic nation, for its sole 
significance in history is that It upheld to the ancient world the banner 
of righteousness. But a third and most precious characteristic of the 
mission of the prophets is the steady, inextinguishable spirit of hope 
which animated them amid the direst catastrophes of their people, and 
which gleams out amid their stormiest predictions of retribution and 
woe. Even in abasement their horizon is always luminous with the 
certainty of victory. As each of them could personally say, " Although 
the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the 
labor of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no food: the flock 
shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: 
yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation;" 
so they could always point to the bow of mercy amid the wildest storm 
of ruin. And this hope spreads outward in ever-widening circles. 



PROPHETS BEFORE EXILE 437 

Even when the prophecies of Israel's destruction seem to be most 
sweeping, it is always intimated that Israel shall not utterly be de- 
stroyed. The conviction of the prophet is that evinced by Isaiah 
when he called one of his sons Shear-Jashub (a remnant shall be left). 
And the hope for all Israel becomes more and more clearly a hope for 
all mankind. The ultimate and most decisive declaration of Hebrew 
prophecy is, " The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall 
see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." God was, 
for them, always in the meridian; a Sun that knew no setting. Trust 
in him involved a universality of promise for the whole race of which 
he is the Father in heaven. Grander, more divine than any mere con- 
gruities of dates and details, was the faith which believed that there 
was all the certainty of a law in the ultimate triumph of goodness and 
of truth. 

4. And this hope, which sometimes seems to fill their pages with 
divine contradictions, centers more and more brightly, more and more 
definitely, in a divine Person, an anointed Deliverer, a coming Saviour 
for all mankind. And thus prophecy is the pervading and central ele- 
ment of the whole sacred canon. " As we watch the weaving of the web 
of Hebrew life, we endeavor to trace through it the more conspicuous 
threads. Long time the eye follows the crimson; it disappears at 
length; but the golden thread of sacred prophecy stretches to the end." 
So true is the great saying of the apostle, that " the testimony of Jesus 
is the spirit of prophecy." The Messianic hope, and the trust in God by 
which it was inspired and continued, is the richest legacy of the proph- 
ets to all after-ages. They point us to a Priest upon his throne, to a 
Man as a hiding place from the wind, a covert from the tempest, the 
shadow of a great rock in a weary land. And in the certain advent of 
that divine Redeemer — beyond the sins and confusions of Israel, beyond 
the anarchy and moral chaos of the world — they saw, as it were, the 
body of heaven in its clearness, the vision of the Perfect Man, the vision 
of the Perfect God. [pp. 11-14] — " The Minor Prophets'' Rev. F. W. Far- 
rar, D. D., F. R. 8., pp. 1-14. New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Co. 

Prophets Before Exile, Dates of. — Jonah is mentioned (2 Kings 
14: 25) as having foretold the deliverance of Israel and recovery of its 
former prosperity, which came to pass in the reign of Jeroboam the 
Second, b. c. 824-783. 

Of Joel we learn only that he was the son of Pethuel. The time of 
his prophesying seems to lie not very long before that of Amos, whose 
prophecy begins with a text of Joel. Movers (p. 119 ff.) and Ewald refer 
it to the reign of Joash, but on grounds which I think inconclusive. 

Amos prophesied in the reign of Jeroboam the Second, and In that 
pq,rt of it which was contemporary with the reign of Uzziah, that is, 
B. o. 808-783. He began to prophesy " two years before the earthquake; " 
this, as a remarkable event, is alluded to by Zechariah long afterward 
(14: 5), but its time is not known. The close connection between the 
close of Joel and the opening of Amos seems to indicate that the two 
prophets were not far separated in time. 

Hosea began in the same reigns, but continued to prophesy into the 
reign of Hezekiah (1: 1); i. e., from before 783 b. c. till after 726 b. c. 
Like Amos, he prophesied against the ten tribes; he may have lived 
to see the fulfilment of his predictions. 

Isaiah was commissioned to the prophetical oflBce in the death-year 
of Uzziah (6: 1). — " Chronology of the Holy Scriptures'' Henry Browne, 
M, A., p. 249. London: John W. Parker, 1844. 



438 PROPHETS, DATES OF 

Prophets, Dates of. — That the canonical order of the books of 
the prophets is not their chronological order is well known. 

But the dates usually to be found at the head or in the margin of 
our Bibles, as well as in many of the tables supplied in " Aids " to 
students, involve the subject in hopeless confusion. 

The four prophets commonly styled "Greater" (or Longer), viz., 
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, are all dated. 

Of the other twelve, called "Minor" (or Shorter), six are dated 
and six are undated. 

The dated books are Hosea, Amos, Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai, and 
Zechariah. 

The undated books are Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, 
and Malachi. 

Of the whole sixteen, therefore, we have ten dated and six un- 
dated. 

From the particulars given in the dated books themselves, we are 
enabled to lay down with precision the years and periods covered by 
the respective prophecies. 

With regard to the undated books the case is different; and we 
have to rely upon the guidance of their internal evidence. But this 
in almost every case is so clear that there is no great difficulty in 
assigning each of the prophetical books to its respective chronological 
position, Obadiah being perhaps the only exception, [p. 112] . . . 

The sixteen prophetical books fall into four remarkable and well- 
defined divisions, separated by three " breaks," or periods of years, as 
shown below: 

The first group consists of six prophets; viz., Jonah, Amos, Hosea, 
Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, covering a period of 102 years. Then follows 
a great " gap " or " break " of 70 years. 

The second group consists of seven prophets; viz., Jeremiah, Habak- 
kuk, Zephaniah, Daniel, Joel, Ezekiel, Obadiah, covering a period of 
94 years, followed by a " gap " or " break " of 14 years. 

The third group consists of two prophets; viz., Haggai, Zechariah, 
covering a period of 7 years. Then follows a " gap " of 29 years, which 
is closed by the prophet Malachi. 

The whole period covered by the sixteen prophets is therefore 316 
years. — " TUe Companion Bible,*' Part IV, " Isaiah to Malachi,'' Appen- 
dix, pp. 112, 114. London: Oxford University Press. 

Psalm 119, Ten Words of. — The number of the words which are 
frequently repeated in Psalm 119 has been variously given and enumer- 
ated by expositors and commentators. It will be better to give them 
here on the authority of the Massorah (Ap. 30). 

The rubric on verse 122 is as follows: "Throughout the whole of 
the Great Alphabet [i. e., the Alphabetic Psalm, 119] there is in every 
verse one of the following ten expressions: Derek (way), 'e'dilth (testi- 
mony), jjifcfciifif'm- (precepts), mAzvah (commandment), 'imrdh (saying), 
t67-dh (law), mishpat (judgment), zedek, zedalcdh, and zaddik (right- 
eousness), hok and hukkdh (statutes), ddhdr (word), which correspond 
to the ten commandments; except one verse, in which there is none of 
these; viz., verse 122." ("Massorah," Ginsburg's edition. Vol. II.) 

The following list includes all the " ten words " given above, with 
every occurrence in the psalm, together with the first occurrence of 
each word: 

1. " Way " (derek) is from ddrak, to tread with the feet, and de- 
notes the act of walking. Hence it is used of a going, or way, or jour- 
neying. The first occurrence is Genesis 3: 24. It occurs in this psalm 
thirteen times: vs. 1, 3, 5, 14, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 59, 168. 



PSALM 119; TEN WORDS ON 43 9 

2. " Testimonies " ('eduthj is from 'ild, to turn back again, to go 
over again, to reiterate, hence, to testify. The first occurrence is Grcn- 
esis 21:30 fedahj. It occurs in this psalm twenty-three times; nine 
times f'eduth), vs. 14, 31, 36, 88, 99, 111, 129, 144, 157; fourteen times 
Ceddh, fern, sing.), vs. 2, 22, 24, 46, 59, 79, 95, 119, 125, 138, 146, 152, 
167, 168. 

3. " Precepts " (pikkudlm) is from pakad, to take oversight or 
charge; hence, mandates enjoined on others. It occurs only in the 
book of Psalms. (See 19: 8; 103: 18; 111: 7.) In Psalm 119 twenty- 
ohe times: vs. 4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 
128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173. 

4. " Commandments " (mizvdhj is from zavdh, to set up, constitute; 
hence, constitutional commands. First occurrence, Genesis 26: 5. In 
Psalm 119 it occurs twenty-two times: vs. 6, 10, 19, 21, 32, 35, 47, 48, 
60, 66, 73, 86, 96, (sing.) 98, 115, 127, 131, 143, 151, 166, 172, 176. 

5. "Word" Cimrdh) is from 'dmar, to bring forth to light; hence, 
to say. The verb is very regularly followed by the words used; hence, 
Hmrdh means an utterance and the purport of it. Not the same as 
ddbdr (No. 10 below), which refers to the articulate utterance of it. 
The first occurrence is in Genesis 4:23, and is rendered "speech." 
In plural only once. Psalms 12: 6 (the only place where the plural is 
found). In Psalm 119 it occurs nineteen times; viz., 11, 38, 41, 50, 58, 67, 
76, 82, 103, 116, 123, 133, 140, 148, 154, 158, 162, 170, 172. With dabdr the 
two occur forty-two times. 

6. "Law" (tordh) is from ydrCih, to project, issue; hence, to point 
out, to show (Prov. 6: 13); then, to instruct, teach. The tordh contains 
Jehovah's instructions to his people, pointing out to them his will. 
First occurrence is in Genesis 26: 5 (pi.). In Psalm 119 it occurs 
twenty-five times, always in the singular; viz., vs. 1, 18, 29, 34, 44, 51, 
53, 55, 61, 70, 72, 77, 85, 92, 97, 109, 113, 126, 136, 142, 150, 153, 163, 165, 
174. 

7. " Judgment " fmishpdt) is from shdphat, to set upright, erect 
(cp. Eng. right, and German richten and recht) ; hence, to judge. Mish- 
pdt means judgment. Its first occurrence is in Genesis 18: 19 (in 
Jehovah's mouth). In Psalm 119 it occurs twenty-three times (always 
in plural, except four times) ; viz., vs. 7, 13, 20, 30, 39, 43, 52, 62, 75, 84, 91 
(ordinances), 102, 106, 108, 120, 121, 132 (as thou usest to do), 137, 149 
156, 160, 164, 175. 

8. "Righteousness, right," etc. fzedek, masc), is from zddak. to be 
right, upright, just, righteous. Hence the noun means rightness. By 
comparing the first occurrence (Lev. 19: 15) with the second (Lev. 
19: 36), we get the idea that the word has special reference to equal 
balancing. Zedek (masc.) occurs twelve times, and is rendered "right- 
eousness: " vs. 123, 142 (second), 144, 172; "right," v. 75 (marg., 
righteousness); "righteous," vs. 7, 62, 106, 138, 160, 164; "justice" v. 
121. Zeddkdh (fem.), first occurrence. Genesis 15: 6. In Psalm 119, 
"righteousness," vs. 40, 142 (first). Zaddlk (adj.), spoken of a king 
(2 Sam. 23: 3), once, in v. 137. The three words fifteen times in all. 

9. " Statute " fhok and hukka) is from hdkak, to hew, cut in, en- 
grave, inscribe; hence to decree, or ordain. The noun = a decree or 
ordinance. First occurrence. Genesis 26: 5 (hukkdh, fem.). In Psalm 
119 it occurs twenty-two times; viz., vs. 5, 8, 12, 16 fhukkdh, fem.), 
23, 26, 33, 48, 54, 64, 68, 71, 80, 83, 112, 117, 118, 124, 135, 145, 155, 171. 

10. " Word, words " (ddbdr), is from, ddhar, to arrange in a row; 
hence, to set forth in speech. It refers to the articulate form of what 
is said, whether spoken or written (cp. 5 above) ; to the mode or manner 
by which the ipsissima verba [very words themselves] are imparted. 
The first occurrence is in Genesis 11: 1 ("speech"). In Psalm 119 it 



440 PTOLEMIES OF EGYPT 

occurs twenty-four times, three of them in pi.; viz., vs. 9, 16, 17, 25, 28, 
42 (twice), 43, 49, 57 (pi), 65, 74, 81, 89, 101, 105, 107, 114, 130 
(pi.), 139 (pi.), 147, 160, 161, 169.— "TTie Companion Bihle,'' Part III, 
" Psalms to Song of Solomon," Appendix, p. 108. London: Oxford Uni- 
versity Press. 

Ptolemies of Egypt. — Ptolemaeus, or Ptolemy, was the common 
name of the Greek dynasty of Egyptian kings. Ptolemaeus I, Soter, the 
son of Lagus, a Macedonian of low rank, distinguished himself greatly 
during the campaigns of Alexander, at whose death he secured for him- 
self the government of Egypt, where he proceeded at once to lay the 
foundations of a kingdom, b. c. 323. He abdicated in favor of his 
youngest son, Ptolemy II, Philadelphus, two years before his death, 
which took place in b. c. 283. Ptolemy Soter is described very briefly 
in Daniel (Dan. 11: 5), as one of those who should receive part of the 
empire of Alexander when it was " divided toward the four winds of 
heaven." 

Ptolemaeus II, Philadelphus, b. c. 285-247, the youngest son of 
Ptolemy I, was made king two years before his father's death, to con- 
firm the irregular succession. The conflict between Egypt and Syria 
was renewed during his reign, in consequence of the intrigue of his half- 
brother Magas. Ptolemy bestowed liberal encouragement on literature 
and science, founding the great library and museum at Alexandria, and 
gathered about him many men of learning, as the poet Theocritus, the 
geometer Euclid, and the astronomer Aratus. This reign was a critical 
epoch for the development of Judaism, as it was for the intellectual his- 
tory of the ancient world. The critical faculty was called forth in place 
of the creative, and learning in some sense supplied the place of original 
speculation. It was impossible that the Jew, who was now become as 
true a citizen of the world as the Greek, should remain passive in the 
conflict of opinions. It is enough now to observe the greatness of the 
consequences involved in the union of Greek language with Jewish 
thought. From this time the Jew was familiarized with the great 
types of Western literature, and in some degree aimed at imitating them. 
A second time and in new fashion Egypt disciplined a people of God. 
It first impressed upon a nation the firm unity of a family, and then in 
due time reconnected a matured people with the world from which it 
had been called out. 

Ptolemaeus III, Euergetes, b. c. 247-222, was the eldest son of 
Ptolemy Philadelphus and brother of Berenice the wife of Antiochus II. 
The repudiation and murder of his sister furnished him with an oc- 
casion for invading Syria, cir. b. c. 246. Dan. 11: 7. He extended his 
conquests as far as Antioch, and then eastward to Babylon, but was 
recalled to Egypt by tidings of seditions which had broken out there. 
His success was brilliant and complete. He carried " captives into 
Egypt their gods [of the conquered nations], with their princes, and 
with their precious vessels of silver and of gold." Dan. 11: 8. This 
capture of sacred trophies earned for the king the name Euergetes 
("Benefactor"). After his return to Egypt, cir. b. c. 243, he suffered 
a great part of the conquered provinces to fall again under the power 
of Seleucus. 

Ptolemaeus IV, Philopater, b. c. 222-205. After the death of Ptolemy 
Euergetes the line of the Ptolemies rapidly degenerated. Ptolemy 
Philopator, his eldest son, who succeeded him, was to the last degree 
sensual, effeminate, and debased. But externally his kingdom retained 
its power and splendor; and when circumstances forced him to action, 
Ptolemy himself showed ability not unworthy of his race. The descrip- 
tion of the campaign of Raphia (b. c. 217) in the book of Daniel gives a 



PTOIiEMIES OF EGYPT 441 

vivid description of his character. Dan. 11: 10-12; of. Mace. 1: 1-3. 
After offering in the temple at Jerusalem sacrifices for the success then 
achieved, he attempted to enter the sanctuary. A sudden paralysis 
hindered his design; hut when he returned to Alexandria, he determined 
to inflict on the Alexandrine Jews the vengeance for his disappointment. 
He was succeeded by his only child, Ptolemy V, Epiphanes, who was 
at the time only four or five years old. 

Ptolemseus V, Epiphanes, b. c. 205-181. The reign of Ptolemy 
Epiphanes was a critical epoch in the history of the Jews. The rivalry 
between the Syrian and Egyptian parties, which had for some time 
divided the people, came to an open rupture in the struggles which 
marked his minority. In the strong language of Daniel, " The robbers 
of the people exalted themselves to establish the vision." Dan. 11: 14. 
The accession of Ptolemy and the confusion of a disputed regency fur- 
nished a favorable opportunity for foreign invasion. " Many stood up 
against the king of the south" under Antiochus the Great and Philip 
III of Macedonia, who formed a league for the dismemberment of his 
kingdom. " So the king of the north (Antiochus) came, and cast up a 
mount, and took the most fenced city (Sidon), and the arms of the 
south did not withstand" (at Paneas, b. c. 198). Dan. 11: 14, 15. The 
Romans interfered, and in order to retain the provinces of Coele-Syria, 
Phoenicia, and Judea, Antiochus "gave him [Ptolemy] a young maiden" 
(his daughter Cleopatra as his betrothed wife). Dan. 11: 17. But in 
the end his policy only partially succeeded. After the marriage of 
Ptolemy and Cleopatra was consummated, b. c. 193, Cleopatra did " not 
stand on his side," but supported her husband in maintaining the al- 
liance with Rome. The disputed provinces, however, remained in the 
possession of Antiochus; and Ptolemy was poisoned at the time when 
he was preparing an expedition to recover them from Seleucus, the 
unworthy successor of Antiochus. 

Ptolemaeus VI, Philometor, b. c. 181-145. On the death of Ptolemy 
Epiphanes, his wife Cleopatra held the regency for her young son, 
Ptolemy Philometor, and preserved peace with Syria till she died, b. c. 
173. The government then fell into unworthy hands, and an attempt 
was made to recover Syria. Comp. 2 Mace. 4: 21. Antiochus Epiphanes 
seems to have made the claim a pretext for invading Egypt. The 
generals of Ptolemy were defeated near Pelusium, probably at the close 
of B. c. 171 (1 Mace. 1: 16 fC.) ; and in the next year Antiochus, having se- 
cured the person of the young king, reduced almost the whole of Egypt. 
Comp. 2 Mace. 5: 1. Meanwhile Ptolemy Euergetes II, the younger 
brother of Ptolemy Philometor, assumed the supreme power at Alex- 
andria; and Antiochus, under the pretext of recovering the crown for 
Philometor, besieged Alexandria in b. c. 169. By this time, however, his 
selfish designs were apparent: the brothers were reconciled, and An- 
tiochus was obliged to acquiesce for the time in the arrangement which 
they made. But while doing so he prepared for another invasion of 
Egypt, and was already approaching Alexandria when he was met by 
the Roman embassy led by C. Popillius Leenas, who, in the name of the 
Roman senate, insisted on his immediate retreat (b. c. 168), a command 
which the late victory at Pydna made it impossible to disobey. These 
campaigns, which are intimately connected with the visits of Antiochus 
to Jerusalem in b. c. 170, 168, are briefly described in Daniel 11: 25-30. 
The whole of Syria was afterward subdued by Ptolemy, and he was 
crowned at Antioch king of Egypt and Asia. 1 Mace. 11 : 13. Alexander, 
a rival claimant, attempted to secure the crown, but was defeated and 
afterward put to death by Ptolemy. But the latter did not long enjoy 
his success. He fell from his horse in the battle, and died within a 
few days. 1 Mace. 11: 18. Ptolemy Philometor is the last king of 



442 PURGATORY, DOCTRINE OF 

Egypt who is noticed in sacred history, and his reign was marked also 
by the erection of the temple at Leontopolis. — "A Dictionary of the 
Bible,'' William Smith, LL. D., pp. 541-543, Teacher's edition. Phila- 
delphia: Porter and Coates, copyright 1884. 

Pul, "King of Assyria." — One important difficulty presents itself 
at this point of the narrative, in an apparent contradiction between the 
native records of the Assyrians and the casual notices of their history 
contained in the Second Book of Kings. The Biblical Pul — the " king 
of Assyria " who came up against the land of Israel, and received 
.from Menahem a thousand talents of silver, " that his hand might be 
with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand " — is unnoticed in the 
native inscriptions, and even seems to be excluded from the royal lists 
by the absence of any name at all resembling his in the proper place 
in the famous Canon, [p. 122] 

Pul appears in Scripture to be the immediate predecessor of Tiglath- 
Pileser. . . . Others would identify him with Tiglath-Pileser himself. 
But perhaps the most probable supposition is, that he was a pretender 
to the Assyrian crown, never acknowledged at Nineveh, but established 
in the western (and southern) provinces so firmly that he could venture 
to conduct an expedition into Lower Syria, and to claim there the 
fealty of Assyria's vassals. Or possibly he may have been a Babylonian 
monarch, who in the troublous times that had now evidently come 
upon the northern empire, possessed himself of the Euphrates valley, 
and thence descended upon Syria and Palestine. — " The Five Great 
Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World," George Rawlinson, M. A., 
Vol. II, pp. 122-124. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 

Purgatorj% Doctrine of. — In connection with the doctrine of the 
mass and its effects, stands the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatorial 
fire into which the souls of all those pious persons are removed who 
die without having made full satisfaction for their sins, and out of 
which they may be delivered by means of private masses and indul- 
gences. The Protestants unanimously rejected this antiscriptural doc- 
trine, and also the Greek theologians, though the latter admitted the 
notion of an intermediate state of the departed. — "A History of Chris- 
tian Doctrines." Dr. K. R. Hagenhach, Vol. Ill, p. 173. Edinburgh: 
T. d T. Clark, 1881. 

Purgatory, Origin of Doctrine, Opposition to. — From the time of 
Gregory the Great, the doctrine of a purifying fire, through which souls 
have to pass after death, came to be more and more generally adopted. 
The belief in it was strengthened by supposed facts furnished by leg- 
ends. Missionaries carried this notion, already developed and complete, 
to the nations which were newly converted; and the writers of the 
present age, scholastics as well as poets and orators, gave the fullest 
description of it. Many believed in the real existence of purgatory as 
a material fire, which, however, in the absence of a body susceptible of 
physical sufferings, torments the lost souls in an ideal manner (by 
means of the conception of suffering). Even men who leaned to mys- 
ticism, such as Bonaventura and Gerson, maintained the reality of the 
fire. But that which made the doctrine practically injurious was the 
belief built upon it, that souls might be relieved from their pains, or 
even relieved from their state of suffering, sooner than would otherwise 
have been the case, by means of the intercessory prayers and good works 
of the living, and particularly by means of masses for the dead (missce 
pro requie defunctorum). Inasmuch as these masses and ecclesiastical 
indulgences were paid for, the question arose, whether the rich were 



REFORMATION, PRINCIPLES OF 443 

not, in this respect, more privileged than the poor; to which Peter Lom- 
bard replied in the affirmative. Therefore it is not surprising that the 
increasing avarice and injustice of the clergy should have induced the 
Cathari and Waldenses, as well as Wycliffe, to combat the doctrine in 
question as a most dangerous one. It never met with full acceptance in 
the Greek Church. — "A History of Christian Doctrines,'' Dr. K. R. 
Hagendach, Vol. II, p. 388. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1880. 

Reformation, Characteristic Principles or. — From the commence- 
ment of the Reformation it became evident, in the course of the strug- 
gle, that its adherents proceeded upon a different formal principle (as to 
the source of knowledge and rule of faith) from that held by the Roman 
Church of that period. For while the advocates of the Roman Church 
continually appealed to the authority of tradition, the Protestants re- 
fused to yield to any arguments but those clearly drawn from Scripture. 
This primitive difference was prominently brought forward in the sym- 
bolical books in general, and in those of the Reformed Church in par- 
ticular. It may be specified in the four following particulars: 

1. While the Protestant church asserts that the sacred writings of 
the Old and New Testaments are the only sure source of religious 
knowledge, and constitute the sole rule of faith, the Roman Catholic 
Church assumes the existence of another source, together with the Bible, 
viz., tradition. 

2. According to Protestants, the Holy Bible is composed only of the 
canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, while the Roman 
Catholics also ascribe canonical authority to the so-called Apocrypha of 
the Old Testament. 

3. The Roman Catholic Church claims the sole right of interpreting 
the Scripture, while the Protestant Church concedes this right, in a 
stricter sense, to every one who possesses the requisite gifts and attain- 
ments, but in a more comprehensive sense to every Christian who seeks 
after salvation; it proceeds upon the principle that Scripture is its own 
interpreter, according to the analogia fidei. 

4. With this is connected, in the fourth place, the assumption of 
the Roman Catholic Church, that the Vulgate Version, which it sanc- 
tions, is to be preferred to all other versions as the authentic one, and 
is thus to a certain extent of equal importance with the original, while 
Protestants regard the original only as authentic. — Id., Vol. Ill, pp. 
39, 40. 

Religions of the East, " The Winged One." — There was another 
way in which Nimrod's power was symbolized besides by the " horn." A 
synonym for Gheber, " The mighty one," was " Abir," while " Aber " 
also signified a " wing." Nimrod, as head and captain of those men of 
war by whom he surrounded himself, and who were the instruments of 
establishing his power, was " Baal-aberin," " Lord of the mighty ones." 
But " Baal-abirin " (pronounced nearly in the same way) signified " The 
winged one," and therefore in symbol he was represented, not only as 
a horned bull, but as at once a horned and winged bull — as showing 
not merely that he was mighty himself, but that he had mighty ones 
under his command, who were ever ready to carry his will into effect, 
and to put down all opposition to his power; and to shadow forth the 
vast extent of his might, he was represented with great and wide- 
expanding wings. To this mode of representing the mighty kings of 
Babylon and Assyria, who imitated Nimrod and his successors, there 
is manifest allusion in Isaiah 8: 6-8: "Forasmuch as this people re- 
fuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and 



444 REVELATION, BOOK OP 

Remaliah's son; now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon 
them the waters of the river, strong and mighty, even the king of 
Assyria, and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his banks. 
And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over; he 
shall reach even unto the neck; and the stretching out of his wings 
shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel." When we look at such 
figures as those which are here presented to the reader [illustra- 
tions of bulls from Nimrlid and Persepolis. — Eds.], with their great 
extent of expanded wing, as symbolizing an Assyrian king, what 
a vividness and force does it give to the inspired language of the 
prophet! And how clear is it, also, that the stretching forth of the 
Assyrian monarch's wings, that was to " fill the breadth of Immanuel's 
land," has that very symbolic meaning to which I have referred, viz., 
the overspreading of the land by his " mighty ones," or hosts of armed 
men, that the king of Babylon was to bring with him in his overflowing 
invasion! — ''The Two Balylons" Rev. Alexander Hislop, pp. 37-39, 
7th edition. London: 8. W. Partridge & Go. 

Revelation, Book of, Time of Writing or. — The older theologians 
proceeded almost uniformly on the supposition that the book of Reve- 
lation was composed in the closing period of Domitian's reign, [p. 1] . . . 

We shall, flrst of all, examine the external testimonies that relate 
to the point at issue. From these we shall gather the result that, what 
Lampe has said in his Commentary on John 1, p. 62, " all antiquity 
agrees in the opinion of Domitian's being the author of John's ban- 
ishment," is no paradox, but the simple truth. For the deviations from 
this result are on the part only of such as do' not deserve to be heard 
and considered. 

The series of testimonies for the composition under Domitian is 
opened by Irenaeus. He says (B. V. ch. 30), "For if it were necessary 
at present to declare plainly his name (i. e., the name of the person 
indicated by the number 666 in the Apocalypse 13: 18), it might be done 
through him, who also saw the Apocalypse. For it was seen not long 
ago, but almost in our generation, toward the close of Domitian's reign." 
Irenaeus was in a position for knowing the truth, [p. 2] . . . 

Clement of Alexandria (in the work, " Quis dives," sec. 42, and in 
Eusebius III, 23) says: "For since he (John) after the death of the 
tyrant returned to Ephesus from the isle Patmos," etc. The manner in 
which he speaks of the matter shows that there is implied a generally 
known tradition: the tyrant, the Roman emperor of the flrst century, 
Domitian, who, as is well known, pre-eminently deserves that name, 
[p. 3] . . . 

Eusebius, in book III, ch. xviii of his " Church History," says, 
"Under him (Domitian) tradition relates, that the apostle and evangel- 
ist John, who was still alive, on account of his testimony for the divine 
word, was condemned to reside in the isle Patmos." In book III, ch. xx: 
" Then also that the apostle John returned from his banishment on the 
island, and took up his dwelling again at Ephesus, the tradition of our 
older men has delivered to us." Again, in book III, ch. xxiii : " John 
governed there (in Asia) the churches, after his return from exile on 
the island, subsequent to the death of Domitian." Also in the " Chron- 
icon " under the fourteenth year of Domitian, " The apostle John, the 
theologian, he banished to the isle Patmos, where he saw the Apocalypse, 
as Irenaeus says." 

Eusebius is quite consistent with himself in the several passages, 
and always speaks with the same confidence (comp. besides Demonstr. 
Ill, 5). When in the " Chronicon " he refers to Irenaeus as a sure 
voucher, it is so far of importance as it shows him to have had no sus- 



REVELATION, BOOK OF 445 

picion that that Father had formed it by merely combining notices 
together. But it does not at all prove that Irenaeus was the only source 
of the tradition of Eusebius. The contrary is manifest from the circum- 
stance that what Eusebius gives as the testimony of tradition, contains 
more than what is stated by Irenaeus, and also because in one of the 
passages he refers to several depositaries of the tradition. Never once 
does Eusebius point, by so much as a single syllable, to any other view 
regarding the author of John's exile, and the time of the composition of 
the Apocalypse. So that there must then in this respect have been 
perfect unanimity in the church. Finally, under the name of Victorinus 
of Petabio, who suffered martyrdom under Diocletian in the year 303, 
we have a writing on the Apocalypse, which is printed in the third 
volume of the Bibl. Patr. Lugd., and which as to its substance is 
undoubtedly genuine, for it bears too exactly the character of the style 
which Jerome ascribes to Victorinus (see the collection of his expres- 
sions in the Bibl. Patr., and other reasons for its substantial genuine- 
ness, may be seen in Liicke, p. 494). But in this work the composition 
of the Apocalypse under Domitian, during the exile in Patmos, is spoken 
of as a matter of undoubted certainty. 

These are all the testimonies on the time of the composition of the 
Apocalypse belonging to the age of living tradition. They declare with 
perfect unanimity that John was banished by Domitian to Patmos, and 
there wrote the Apocalypse, [pp. 5, 6] — " The Revelation of St. John," 
E. W. Heng stent erg, translated from the original hy Rev. Patrick Fair- 
lairn, Yol. I, pp. 1-6. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1851. 

Revelation, Book of, Scenery Employed in. — And what then was 
to be the mode and manner of unfolding, before the august company 
thus assembled, this great revelation of the coming future? Was it to 
be simply, as in the case of some other revelations from God, by the 
reading out what was written in the book? Not so. The subject 
matter therein contained was, in a manner far more interesting, to 
be visibly enacted, even as in a living drama; and for the requisite 
scenery and agency alike heaven and earth put in requisition. . . . 

Now of the Apocalyptic scenery, as the reader will be aware, no 
detailed or connected account is given us. We have only incidental 
notices of it. These, however, occur perpetually; and, if carefully 
gathered up and compared together, will be found wonderfully to 
harmonize, so as indeed to indicate a scenery designedly provided for 
the occasion, consistent and complete. And the importance of an early 
and familiar acquaintance with it will hence sufficiently appear, in 
that it is that from which the character and meaning of many im- 
portant points in the Apocalyptic prefigurations is alone to be deduced; 
and that too which connects and gives unity to them as a whole. 

The scene then first visible, and which remained stationary through- 
out the visions in the foreground, was as of the interior of a temple; 
including in its secret and inmost sanctuary the throne of Jehovah 
already spoken of, and the blessed company attendant round it. For 
this did not appear in open space or public, but, as seems manifest in 
the progress of the prophetic drama, and is indeed in one place directly 
intimated, within the inclosure of a temple sanctuary. It was a temple 
resembling Solomon's, or, yet more, the tabernacle framed earlier by 
Moses in the wilderness; although on a grander scale, at least as re- 
gards the inner sanctuary, and with other marked peculiarities. The 
which resemblance is also expressly intimated to us. For it was called 
upon one occasion "the temple of God;" on another, in words only 
referable to the Jewish temple or tabernacle, " the temple of the 
tabernacle of witness, in heaven." Moreover in its parts and divisions 



446 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 

it well corresponded with that of Israel. The temple proper, or 
sanctuary, was similarly constituted of the holy place and that most 
holy; save that there was no veil, as of old, to separate them: the one 
being characterized by the golden altar of incense, and, as I think 
also, by the seven burning lamps; the other by the divine glory, and 
the ark of the covenant. A court too appeared attached to this 
sanctuary, just as to the Jewish, and one similarly marked by an 
altar of sacrifice standing in it: besides that there was the similar 
appendage of an outer court also, as if of the Gentiles. 

As the visions proceeded, other objects appeared in connected 
landscape, around and beneath the temple. Nearest was the Mount 
Zion and its holy city: not the literal Jerusalem, which had been 
leveled to the ground, and was now literally in bondage with her 
children; but that which, though in some things different, sufficiently 
resembled it to have the likeness at once recognized, and to receive 
the appellation: then, beneath and beyond, far stretching (even as it 
might have appeared from that high mountain whence were seen in 
a moment of time the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them), 
the miniature but living landscape of the Roman Empire. Both the 
Mount Zion and the temple seem to have appeared high raised above 
the earth, although not altogether detached from it; and the former, 
as well as latter, in near proximity to the heavenly glory within the 
sanctuary. So that while, on the one hand, the temple might be called 
" the temple of the tabernacle of witness in heaven," and they that were 
true worshipers and citizens in the temple and Mount Zion, " the taber- 
naclers in heaven," yet, on the other, the outer court of the temple 
appeared accessible to the inhabitants of the earth below, and the holy 
city susceptible of invasion from them. 

Such was the standing scenery throughout the Apocalyptic visions. 
—'' HorcB Apocalypticw,'' Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., Yol. I, pp. 96-99, 
3d edition. London: 8eeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847: 

Roman Catholic Church, Doctrinax Position Defined in the Six- 
teenth Century. — Confronted by Protestantism, the Roman Catholic 
Church found itself under the necessity of examining its own condition. 
It had to perform a twofold task, viz., first, to secure the doctrines 
which it confessed from misrepresentations and false inferences; and, 
secondly, to hold fast, with renewed vigor, that which its principles 
bound it to maintain. The Council of Trent (1545-1593) had therefore 
to enlighten the Roman Catholic Church on its own position, and sol- 
emnly to sanction its system (developed to a great extent by the 
scholastics of the preceding period) in conscious opposition to the de- 
mands of the Reformers. The declarations of this Council, as well as 
those set forth in tne Roman Catechism, which was based upon the 
utterances of the Council, are therefore to be regarded as the true sym- 
bols of the Roman Catholic Church, and every doctrine which deviates 
from these must renounce all claim to catholicity. — "A History of Chris- 
tian Doctrines.'' Dr. K. R. Haffenbaeh, Vol. Ill, p. 2. Edinl)urgh: T. d Tv 
Clark, 1881. 

Roman Catholic Church, Two Characteristic Dogmas of. — The 
sinlessness of the Virgin Mary and the personal infallibility of the 
Pope are the characteristic dogmas of modern Romanism, the two test 
dogmas which must decide the ultimate fate of this system. Both were 
enacted under the same Pope, and both faithfully reflect his char- 
acter. Both have the advantage of logical consistency from certain 
premises, and seem to be the very perfection of the Romish form of 
piety and the Romish principle of authority. Both rest on pious fiction 



ROME, SEE OF 447 

and fraud; both present a refined idolatry by clothing a pure humble 
woman and a mortal sinful man with divine attributes. The dogma of 
the immaculate conception, which exempts the Virgin Mary from 
sin and guilt, perverts Christianism into Marianism; the dogma of 
infallibility, which exempts the Bishop of Rome from error, resolves 
Catholicism into papalism, or the church into the Pope. The worship 
of a woman is virtually substituted for the worship of Christ, and a 
man-god in Rome for the Grod-Man in heaven. This is a severe judg- 
ment, but a closer examination will sustain it. 

The dogma of the immaculate conception, being confined to the 
sphere of devotion, passed into the modern Roman creed without seri- 
ous diflBculty; but the dogma of papal infallibility, which involves a 
question of absolute power, forms an epoch in the history of Romanism, 
and created the greatest commotion and a new secession. It is in its 
very nature the most fundamental and most comprehensive of all 
dogmas. It contains the whole system in a nutshell. It constitutes 
a new rule of faith. It is the article of the standing or falling church. 
It is the direct antipode of the Protestant principle of the absolute 
supremacy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. It establishes a per- 
petual divine oracle in the Vatican. Every Catholic may hereafter 
say, I believe — not because Christ, or the Bible, or the church, but — 
because the infallible Pope has so declared and commanded. Admitting 
this dogma, we admit not only the whole body of doctrines contained 
in the Tridentine standards, but all the oflBcial papal bulls, including 
the medieval monstrosities of the Syllabus (1864), the condemnation 
of Jansenism, the bull " Unam Sanctam" of Boniface VIII (1302), 
which, under pain of damnation, claims for the Pope the double sword, 
the secular as well as the spiritual, over the whole Christian world, 
and the power to depose princes and to absolve subjects from their 
oath of allegiance. The past is irreversibly settled, and in all future 
controversies on faith and morals we must look to the same unerring 
tribunal in the Vatican. Even ecumenical councils are superseded 
hereafter, and would be a mere waste of time and strength. — " The 
Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance," Hon. W. E. 
Gladstone, M. P., pp. 83, 84. New York: Harper & Bros., 1875. 

Rome, See of. Has Condemned Important Propositions. — I will 
state, in the fewest possible words and with references, a few proposi- 
tions, all the holders of which have been condemned by the see of Rome 
during my own generation, and especially within the last twelve oi 
fifteen years. And in order that I may do nothing toward importing 
passion into what is matter of pure argument, I will avoid citing any of 
the fearfully energetic epithets in which the condemnations are some- 
times clothed. 

1. Those who maintain the liberty of the press. Encyclical Letter 
of Pope Gregory XVI, in 1831; and of Pope Pius IX, in 1864. 

2. Or the liberty of conscience and of worship. Encyclical of 
Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1864. 

3. Or the liberty of speech. " Syllabus " of March 18, 1861. Prop. 
Ixxix. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1864. 

4. Or who contend that papal judgments and decrees may, without 
sin, be disobeyed or differed from, unless they treat of the rules (dog- 
mata) of faith or morals. Ibid. 

5. Or who assign to the state the power of defining the civil rights 
(jura) and province of the church. " Syllabus " of Pope Pius IX, 
March 8, 1861. Ibid. Prop. xix. 

6. Or who hold that Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have 
transgressed the limits of their power, and usurped the rights of princes. 
Ibid. Prop, xxiii. 



448 ROME, SKETCH OP 

(It must be borne in mind that " ecumenical councils " here mean 
Roman councils not recognized by the rest of the church. The councils 
of the early church did not interfere with the jurisdiction of the civil 
power.) 

7. Or that the church may not employ force. (Ecclesia vis infer- 
endce potestatem non hahet.) " Syllabus." Prop. xxiv. 

8. Or that power, not inherent in the office of the episcopate, but 
granted to it by the civil authority, may be withdrawn from it at the 
discretion of that authority. Ibid. Prop. xxv. 

9. Or that the (immunitas) civil immunity of the church and its 
ministers depends upon civil right. Ibid. Prop. xxx. 

10. Or that in the conflict of laws, civil and ecclesiastical, the 
civil law should prevail. Ibid. Prop. xlii. 

11. Or that any method of instruction of youth, solely secular, 
may be approved. Ibid. Prop, xlviii. 

12. Or that knowledge of things philosophical and civil may and 
should decline to be guided by divine and ecclesiastical authority. 
Ibid. Prop. Ivii. 

13. Or that marriage is not in its essence a sacrament. Ibid. 
Prop. Ixvi. 

14. Or that marriage not sacramentally contracted (si sacramentum 
excludatur) has a binding force. Ibid. Prop. Ixxiii. 

15» Or that the abolition of the temporal power of the popedom 
would be highly advantageous to the church. Ibid. Prop. Ixxvi. Also 
Prop. Ixx. 

16. Or that any other religion than the Roman religion may be 
established by a state. Ibid. Prop. Ixxvii. 

17. Or that in " countries called Catholic " the free exercise of other 
religions may laudably be allowed. " Syllabus." Prop. Ixxviii. 

18. Or that the Roman Pontiff ought to come to terms with prog- 
ress, liberalism, and modern civilization. Ibid. Prop. Ixxx. — " The 
Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegianoe,^* Hon. W. E. 
Gladstone, M. P., pp. 15, 16. New York: Harper d Bros., 1875. 

Rome, Historical Sketch of. — Among the states and kingdoms 
which men have reared as the political bulwarks of progress and civi- 
lization, Rome has an easy pre-eminence. . . . From every point of view 
the mightiness of the Roman power stands forth in tremendous outline, 
against the background of the past. Above her brow is set a tiara of 
significant emblems, and at her girdle are hung the keys of the subject 
kingdoms of the world. 

The beginnings of the history of Rome are set in the prehistoric 
shadows. Myth, tradition, legend of men and fable of the gods, are 
mixed and mingled in the story. A city is founded on a hill by the wolf- 
nursling twins of Rhea Sylvia and Mars. There are half-robber heroes 
struggling for the mastery — Roman, Sabine, Etruscan — descendants of 
tribal ancestors of unknown name and station. There are interceding 
women with disheveled hair, strong as their armored brothers, brave as 
their warring lords. Then comes a line of kings, mostly mythical, 
fiabled in the Vergilian hexameters — in the Augustan rhapsody — in 
which the Trojan blood is made to rule in Latium three hundred years. 
Glimpses of truth flash here and there on the hilltops, until the Elder 
Brutus comes and Tarquin skulks away. 

More brilliant — less fabulous — is the story of the republic. The 
Age of the Consuls is the age of rising fame. In mere prowess a greater 
than the Greek is here. Without the artistic genius of his rival, with- 
out the subtlety, the wit, the intellectual acumen, songcraft, and tongue- 
force of the son of Hellas, the sturdy republican of Rome surpassed 



ROME, SKETCH Ol^ 44d 

him in stalwart vehemence and the stroke of his sword. Stand out of 
the wind of that strong weapon, O Barharian! for it is sharp and swift! 

From the times of Africanus IScipio JEmiUanusI to the age of 
Caesar the strength and majesty of the republic were displayed to the 
best advantage. . . . The trophies of all lands were swept into the 
Eternal City, and her palaces shone with foreign gems and borrowed 
raiment, [p. 27] 

It is the judgment of Gibbon that, on the whole, the happiest period 
of history was the Age of the Antonines [a. d. 121-161]; that then the 
comforts of human life were more generally diffused, and its sorrows, 
misfortunes, and crimes fewer and more tolerable. Had the historian 
lived a century later, he might have changed his verdict; but it cannot 
be doubted that in some fair degree the empire was at peace; nor is 
there any period in the imperial course more worthy to be commended 
than the middle of the second century. From that time forth the decline 
was manifest. The crimes of the earlier Caesars were the crimes of vio- 
lence and audacity; those of the imperial regime were the colder, but 
not less deadly, vices of a depraved court and a decaying people. 

Coming to the times of Justinian, we note with admiration how 
the robust genius of Rome still asserted itself in the perfection of her 
jurisprudence. It is at this point that the Roman intellect is at its best, 
not indeed as a creative force, but as a great energy, producing order 
in the world and equity among men. Here was elaborated that massive 
civil code which Rome left as her best bequest to after-ages. From the 
luminous brains of Justinian's lawyers were deduced those elements of 
jurisprudence which, abbreviated into textbooks and modified to meet the 
altered conditions of civilized life, have combined to furnish the prin- 
cipia of the best law study in the universities of modern times. 

The later history of the Roman Empire has much of melancholy in 
its texture. Not without sorrow will the reflective mind contemplate 
so majestic a ruin. . . . 

The harsh cadences of a speech most gutteral were heard in the 
palaces of the Western Caesars, while distant a thousand years the 
shadow of the semilune of the Prophet was seen rising over the towers 
of Constantinople. 

Great, however, is the change of aspect from the old ages of history 
to the new ages which follow. The Ancient World went back, seem- 
ingly, into primitive chaos and deep darkness. The wheels of evolu- 
tion lagged, stood still, revolved the other way. Black shadows settled 
on all the landscape, and civilization stumbled into ditches and pitfalls. 
The contemplation of the eclipse of old-time greatness by the dark orb 
of barbarism may well fill the mind with a melancholy doubt respecting 
the course and destiny of the human race. . . . 

For the collapse and downfall of ancient society two general causes 
may be assigned. The first of these was the decay of those peculiar vir- 
tues which constituted the ethical and intellectual strength of the Graeco- 
Italic races, [p. 28] . . . 

The second cause of the collapse was the impact of barbarism. For 
centuries the silent Nemesis — she 

" Who never yet has left the unbalanced scale " — 
bottled her wrath against the offending peoples who held the Mediter- 
ranean. At last the seals were loosed, and the barbaric tornado was 
poured out of the North. Through the Alpine passes came the rushing 
cohort of warriors, each with the rage of Scythia in his stomach ana 
the icicles of the Baltic in his beard. The great hulk of Rome tottered, 
fell, and lay dead on the earth, like the stump of Dagon. — ''History of 
the World,'' John Clark Ridpath, LL. D., Introduction, (9 vol. edj Vol. 
Ill, pp. 27-29. Cincinnati: The Jones Brothers Puh. Co., 1910. 
29 



450 ROSETTA STONE 

Bosetta Stone. — The Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799 at 
Rosetta, Egypt, in the ruins of an ancient temple. It contains a decree 
issued in honor of Ptolemy V about 200 b. c, and was inscribed in three 
forms of writing, — the hieroglyphic, demotic or enchorial, and Greek. 
This made it a key to the hieroglyphics, which had been entirely unin- 
telligible up to this time. After more than forty years of study, the 
hieroglyphic form was translated, and thereby the entire field of 
Egyptian records was opened. — " The Library of Original Sources," 
edited hy Oliver J. Thatcher, Vol. I, p. 420. Milwaukee, Wis.: University 
Research Extension Company, copyright 1907. 

Bosetta Stone, Description of. — Rosetta Stone, the name given 
to an inscribed slab of basalt (38 by 30 in.) found near Rosetta, in the 
Nile delta, in 1799, and now preserved in the British Museum. It gave 
the key to the interpretation of Egyptian hieroglyphics, the legend in- 
scribed upon it being trilingual. The topmost inscription is in hieratic 
characters; the middle inscription is in the demotic or enchorial script 
used by the people of the country; while below it the legend is again 
given in uncial Greek. The inscription is a decree of Ptolemy Epiph- 
anes, promulgated at Memphis in 196 b, c. — Nelson's Encyclopedia, Vol. 
X, art. " Rosetta Stone,'' p. 428. 

Sabbath, Hebrew and Babylonian.- — The nearest approach to any 
resemblance to the Hebrew Sabbath that is to be found in the cuneiform 
inscriptions is on the so-called calendar of festivals for the intercalary 
month, Second Elul, and Marchesvan, in which the duties of the shep- 
herd or king are prescribed for the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, 
twenty-eighth, and nineteenth days. While the other days of the month 
were regarded as favorable, there were regarded both as favorable and 
unfavorable. It runs thus: 

'" The seventh day is a holy day of Marduk and Sarpanitum, a for- 
tunate day, an evil day. The shepherd of the great nation shall not 
eat meat roasted by the fire, which is smoked (?), he shall not change 
his garment, he shall not dress in white, he shall not offer a sacrifice. 
The king shall not ride in his chariot, the priestess shall not pronounce 
a divine decision, in a secret place the augur shall not make (an ora- 
cle) ; a physician shall not touch a sick man; (the day) is unsuitable 
for doing business. The king shall bring his offering at night before 
Marduk and Ishtar, he shall make an offering; his prayer shall be 
acceptable to Grod." 

This ud-hul-gal, or " evil day," observed not every seven days, but 
according to the lunar month, was not a day of rest for the people. 
As seen, there were some superstitious requirements demanded of the 
king on that day, but not of the common people. The investigations of 
Johns show that in the Assyrian period in the eighth and seventh cen- 
turies before Christ (720-606), the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and 
twenty-eighth days do not show any marked abstention from business 
transactions. The nineteenth day, however, does. In examining the 
dated tablets of the first dynasty of Babylon, i. e., the time of Abraham, 
he concluded that there is a noticeable abstention on these days, but 
especially on the nineteenth day. Of a total of 356 tablets, the number 
dated on the first day of the month was 39; on the seventh, only 5; on 
the fourteenth, 5; on the twenty-first and twenty-eighth, each 8. Con- 
sidering the month to have thirty days, the average for each day of the 
month would be 11 and a fraction. 

Johns does not state whether his investigations show that other days 
besides the first of the month were especially auspicious for business 



SABBATH 451 

transactions as determined by the dated contracts. If there were, the 
figures do not prove anything. In the Cassite period the temple 
archives show that the average amount of business was transacted on 
those days as well as on the nineteenth. As Johns observes, however, 
most of the Cassite documents referring to the affairs of the temple 
may necessitate their being considered from another point of view. In 
the time of the first dynasty of Babylon and in the Assyrian period, the 
nineteenth day stands out as one upon which Sabbatarian principles 
as regards the doing of business may have been at least partially ob- 
served. It seems it might have been a certain kind of a holy day. 

Besides this hemerology for the intercalary month Elul and Mar- 
chesvan, no further light on the subject has been recovered. In the 
Hammurabi Code of laws, or in fact in the thousands of tablets that 
have been published, scholars have not been able to find anything be- 
yond what has been discussed, which even by inference would seem to 
show that the Babylonians observed such a rest every seven days. 

This hemerology, or religious calendar, was found in the library 
of Ashurbanipal, and, knowing the nature of that library, it is not 
unreasonable to assume that his scribes, having collected every kind 
of literature, ancient and modern, found in some section of the country 
that such a lunar day was observed by oflBcials. Knowing as we do that 
Israel and Judah were carried to Babylonia and Assyria and placed in 
captivity, a custom that was practised in all probability for millen- 
niums; and that this gave rise to many communities of Western Semitic 
peoples in the Euphrates valley, it is not unreasonable to assume that 
at least in some places, where this element predominated, the Sabbath 
was observed in much the same manner as it was in Canaan, Knowing 
also that most of the published contracts of the first dynasty (when, as 
was noticed by Johns, there was at least a falling off of business trans- 
actions on certain days) come largely from a West Semitic center, it 
is not impossible to see here the results of a West Semitic influence. 

Further, it must be noted that the library of Ashurbanipal belonged 
to the century following the fall of Samaria and the deportation of 
Israel, during which century also Tiglath-pileser (745-727 b. c.) took 
Ijon, Abel-Beth-Maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, 
and all the land of Naphthali, and carried them captive to Assyria. 
2 Kings' 15: 29. That is, in the century prior to the time the library of 
Ashurbanipal was gathered, thousands of Palestinian captives were 
brought to Assyria. This fact makes it altogether reasonable to expect 
to find some traces of the Hebrew institution. 

Then also it can properly be assumed that other Western Semites 
besides the Hebrews observed the Sabbath, as, for example, the Ara- 
maeans, whence the Hebrews sprung. As there is every indication in 
the Old Testament that the institution existed prior to Israel, and know- 
ing how for centuries prior to the time of Ashurbanipal the Aramaeans 
and Amorites were the prey of the Eastern kings, we have every reason 
to expect to find some reflections of the observance of the day even from 
other than Hebrew sources in that land. 

This much seems to be certain: The Sabbath as a day of rest, ob- 
served every seven days, has not been found in the Babylonian litera- 
ture. While the hemerology of the late Assyrian period has preserved a 
knowledge of a regulation involving the king and his officials on the 
seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, twenty-eighth, and nineteenth days of 
two months of the year, which days were regarded as " evil days," and 
were to be observed according to certain restrictions in order to appease 
the gods, it cannot even be justifiably assumed at the present time (ex- 



452 SABBATH 

cept perhaps for the nineteenth day) that there was any cessation from 
business of any kind or that there was a rest day for the people. 

The very root from which the word is derived, if in use in the 
Assyro-Babylonian language, is almost unknown, and cannot be shown 
with our present knowledge to have the meaning " to rest, cease, or 
desist." It is only necessary, on the other hand, for one to glance at 
a dictionary of Hebrew words to be impressed with the widely extended 
usage of the root shabath, " to cease, desist, rest," to which the word 
" Sabbath " belongs. And knowing, what this institution was to the 
Hebrew, as is indicated in all the Old Testament codes — that it was 
not a day depending upon the lunar month, but was observed every 
seventh day, although there was in addition the new moon festival 
which was also a day of rest; and further appreciating how extensive 
was the legislation concerning it — that it meant not only abstention 
from daily pursuits, but was a day of consecration, one which the people 
sanctified by a proper observance; that it was not an austere day for the 
king, so that the anger of the gods would be appeased, but a day of rest 
for slave, stranger, and even beast; and that it was an institution with- 
out parallel in ancient as well as in modern times, yes, the day par 
excellence among the Hebrews, — it seems evident, without any elaborate 
discussion of the question, that the Pan-Babylonists, and others who 
hold similar views, are mistaken when they find the origin of the insti- 
tution in Babylonia. — " Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites" 
Albert T. Clay, Ph. D., pp. 57-62. Philadelphia: The Sunday School 
Times Company, 1909. 

Sabbath, The Babylonian. — In reality the Babylonian prohibi- 
tions apply to certain classes of people only, and not to the whole popu- 
lation. A study of the contract literature shows that there was no 
cessation of business upon these days of the month, so that resemblance 
to the Hebrew Sabbath is really quite slight. 

A Day Called Shahatum. — These days were not, so far as we know, 
called shabatum, but another tablet tells us that the fifteenth day of 
each month was so called. Shabatum is etymologically the same as the 
Hebrew Sabbath. As the Babylonian months were lunar, the fifteenth 
was the time of the full moon, so that in Babylonian the day denoted 
the completion of the moon's growth. In the Old Testament " sAbbath " 
is sometimes coupled with " new moon," as though it may also have 
designated a similar day. (See 2 Kings 4: 23; Amos 8:5; Hosea 2: 11; 
Isa. 1: 13; 66: 23; and Eze. 46: 3.) This Babylonian shabatum can, in 
any event, have no direct relationship to the Hebrew Sabbath as a 
day of rest once a week. 

A Day in Some Tablets at Yale, — 'A series of tablets in the Yale 
Babylonian collection, a portion of which has been published by 
Professor Clay, shows that special sacrifices were offered on the 
seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth of each month. 
These sacrifices show that these days were thought to have some pecul- 
iar significance, but whatever that significance may have been, the 
evidence cited shows that it was not the same as that of the Hebrew 
Sabbath. — "Archeology and the Bible," George A. Barton, Ph. D., LL. 
D., p. 259. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, copyright 1916. 

Sabbath, The Babylonian. — The next Old Testament institution 
paralleled on the monuments is the rest day, the Sabbath. " God rested 
on the seventh day from all his work which he had made, and God blessed 
the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it he rested from all his 
work which God had creatively made." Gen. 2: 3. The Babylonian 
Sabbath was called "the day of the rest of the heart." It was not a 



SABBATH 453 

day of rest for man, but a day on which the gods ceased from their 
anger, or a day when their anger could be appeased. We possess a reli- 
gious calendar for two months, the intercalary month Elul and Marchesh- 
van, in which we find special duties enjoined. The seventh, fourteenth, 
nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days are described as " favor- 
able day, evil day," and the remainder of the days as " favorable days." 
For each day certain measures are prescribed, and on the " favorable- 
unfavorable " days, certain precautions were to be observed. The king, 
as one standing nearer the gods than his people, and whose conduct 
affects his people, is enjoined during the specified five days, not to eat 
meat roasted on the coals, nor anything that has touched fire; not to 
array himself in royal robes, nor to offer sacrifices. He was not to 
mount his chariot, nor to sit in state, nor to enter the sacred dwelling 
of the gods. No physician was to be called in to serve at the sick-bed; 
nor was a curse to be invoked on his enemies. The characteristics of 
the two Sabbaths are: The Babylonian Sabbath was so observed by the 
king, the representative of his people, as not to stir up the jealousy or 
anger of the gods; on the Hebrew Sabbath, God rested, and man is like- 
wise to rest from his ordinary labors. 

The Babylonians reckoned their time according to the movements 
of the moon, and this, of course, divided their lunar month into four 
weeks of seven days each, corresponding to the four quarters of the 
moon. The days also were named after the seven planetary deities.- — 
" The Monuments and the Old Testament" Ira Maurice Price, Ph. D., pp. 
85-87. Philadelphia: American Baptist Pul)lication Society, copyright 1907. 

Sabbath, Augsburg Confession on Change of. — Besides these 
things, there is a controversy as to whether bishops or pastors have 
the power to institute ceremonies in the church, and to make laws 
concerning meats, holidays, and degrees, or orders of ministers, and 
so forth. They that ascribe this power to bishops allege this testi- 
mony in support of it: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but 
ye cannot bear them now; but when that Spirit of truth shall come, he 
shall teach you all truth." John 16: 12, 13. They also allege the ex- 
amples of the apostles, who commanded to abstain from blood, and that 
which was strangled. Acts 15: 29. They allege the changing of the 
Sabbath into the Lord's day, contrary, as it seemeth, to the decalogue; 
and they have no example more in their mouths than the change of the 
Sabbath. They will needs have the power to be very great, because it 
hath done away with a precept of the decalogue. 

But of this question thus do ours teach: that the bishops have not 
the power to ordain anything contrary to the gospel, as was showed 
before. — " The Library of Original Sources," edited hy Oliver J. Thatcher, 
Vol. V, pp. 173, 174. Milwaukee, Wis.: University Research Extension 
Company, copyright 1907. 

Sacraments. — The name " sacrament " is given to seven sacred 
Christian rites in the Roman Catholic and Eastern churches, and to 
two, baptism and the Lord's Supper, in the Protestant churches. The 
Greek word mysterion, " mystery," used in the Eastern Church to des- 
ignate these rites, is taken from the New Testament, and contains a 
reference to the hidden virtue behind the outward symbol. The Latin 
word sacramentum means something that is consecrated, more particu- 
larly an oath, especially a military oath of allegiance to the standard; 
and also the sum of money deposited in court by the plaintiff and 
defendant previous to the trial of a case, and kept in some sacred place. 
The term was applied to Christian rites in the time of Tertullian, but 
cannot be traced further back by any distinct testimony. Jerome trans- 



454 SACRAMENTS, CANONS ON 

lated the Greek word mysterion by sacramentum (Eph. 1:9; 3:3, 9; 
5: 32; 1 Tim. 3: 16; Rev. 1: 20), and from the Vulgate the word " sac- 
rament " passed into the Reims Version in Eph. 5 : 32, where marriage 
is spoken of, and the translation is, " This is a great sacrament." In 
other cases the Reims Version retains the word " mystery." 

The doctrine of the sacraments was not fully developed till the 
Middle Ages, and the Schoolmen did for it what the church Fathers did 
for the doctrines of the Trinity and for Christology. With the excep- 
tion of Augustine, none of the Fathers gave more than passing attention 
to the definition and doctrine of sacraments; but the Eastern Church 
held that there were two sacraments, baptism and the eucharist, al- 
though later the number seven was accepted, [p. 141] . . . 

The first blow against the sacramental system of the medieval 
church was given by Luther in his " Babylonish Captivity," in which 
he declared the rights and liberties of the Christian believer to be fet- 
tered by the traditions of men. He rejected all the sacraments except 
baptism and the Lord's Supper, and was followed in this by all the 
Reformers of the continent and Great Britain. All the Protestant con- 
fessions demand active faith as a condition of the efficacy of the sacra- 
ment. Faith apprehends and appropriates the spiritual benefits accru- 
ing from them. — The New ScJiaft-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, Vol. X, art. " Sacrament,'' pp. 141, 143. 

Sacraments, Canons on the. — Canon I. If any one saith that the 
sacraments of the new law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our 
Lord; or that they are more or less than seven, to wit: Baptism, con- 
firmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matri- 
mony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly 
a sacrament; let him be anathema, [p. 59] . . . 

Canon IV. If any one saith that the sacraments of the new law are 
not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that without them, 
or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God through faith alone 
the grace of justification; though all (the sacraments) are not indeed 
necessary for every individual; let him be anathema, [p. 60] . . . 

Canon VI. If any one saith that the sacraments of the new law do 
not contain the grace which they signify; or that they do not confer 
that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto ; as though 
they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through 
faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers 
are distinguished among men from unbelievers; let him be anathema. . . . 

Canon VIII. If any one saith that by the said sacraments of the 
new law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that 
faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; 
let him be anathema. 

Canon IX. If any one saith that in the three sacraments, baptism, 
to wit, confirmation, and order, there is not imprinted in the soul a 
character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign, on account of 
which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema. . . . 

Canon XI. If any one saith that in ministers, when they effect and 
confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of 
doing what the church does; let him be anathema. 

Canon XII. If any one saith that a minister, being in mortal sin, — 
if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting 
or conferring of the sacrament, — neither effects nor confers the sacra- 
ment; let him be anathema. — '* Dogmatic Canons and Decrees," pp. 
59-62. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912. 

Sacraments, Roman Catholic Definition of. — That the sacraments 
are among the means of obtaining salvation and righteousness no one 



SACRAMENTS, NUMBER OF 455 

can doubt. But although there are many ways that may seem apt and 
appropriate to explain this matter, none points it out more plainly and 
clearly than the definition given by St. Augustine, which all scholastic 
doctors have since followed : " A sacrament," says he, " is a sign of a 
sacred thing;" or, as has been said in other words, but to the same 
purport: "A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted 
for our justification." — " Catechism of the Council of Trent" trans- 
lated hy J. Donovan, D. D. (R. C), p. 127. Dullin: James Duffy, 8ons & Go, 

Sacraments, Number or, in the Roman Chuech. — The sacraments, 
then, of the Catholic Church are seven, as is proved from the Scriptures, 
is handed down to us by the tradition of the Fathers, and is testified 
by the authority of councils. 

But why they are neither more nor less in number may be shown, 
with some probability, even from the analogy that exists between nat- 
ural and spiritual life. In order to live, to preserve life, and to con- 
tribute to his own and to the public good, these seven things seem 
necessary to man, — namely, to be born, to grow, to be nurtured, to be 
cured when sick, to be strengthened when weak; next, as regards the 
commonwealth, that magistrates, by whose authority and power it may 
be governed, be never wanting; and, finally, to perpetuate himself and 
his species by the propagation of legitimate offspring. 

Analogous, then, as all those things obviously are to that life by 
which the soul lives to God, from them will be easily inferred the num- 
ber of the sacraments. For the first is baptism, the gate, as it were, 
to all the rest, by which we are born again to Christ. The next is 
confirmation, by virtue of which we grow up, and are strengthened in 
divine grace; for, as St. Augustine bears witness: " To the apostles, who 
had been already baptized, the Lord said: 'Stay you in the city till 
you be endued with power from on high.' " The third is the eucharist, 
by which, as by a truly celestial food, our spirit is nurtured and sus- 
tained; for of it the Saviour has said: "My flesh is meat indeed, and 
my blood is drink indeed." John 6:56 [55]. Penance follows in the 
fourth place, by the aid of which lost health is restored, after we have 
received the wounds of sin. The fifth is extreme unction, by which the 
remains of sin are removed, and the energies of the soul are invigor- 
ated; for, speaking of this sacrament, St. James has testified thus: " If 
he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." James 5: 15. Order follows, 
by which power is given to exercise perpetually in the church the public 
ministry of the sacraments, and to perform all the sacred functions. 
Lastly, is added matrimony, that, by the legitimate and holy union of 
man and woman, children may be procreated, and religiously brought 
up to the worship of God, and the conservation of the human race. 
Eph. 5: 31, sq. — Id., pp. 135, 136. 

Sacraments, Efficacy of. According to Roman Teaching. — A sac- 
rament is defined, by the Catechism of the Council of Trent, to be an 
outward sign, which, in virtue of the divine ordinance, not only typi- 
fies, but works, the supersensual; to wit, holiness and justice. — " Sym- 
holism," John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C), p. 202, 5th edition. London: 
Thomas Baker, 1906. 

As regards the mode in which the sacraments confer on us sanc- 
tifying grace, the Catholic Church teaches that they work in us, by 
means of their character, as an institution prepared by Christ for our 
salvation (ex opere operato, scilicet a Christo, in place of quod operatus 
est Christus), that is to say, the sacraments convey a divine power, 
merited for us by Christ, which cannot be produced by any human dis- 



456 SACRAMENTS, REFORMERS ON 

position, by any spiritual effort or condition; but is absolutely, for 
Christ's sake, conferred by *God through their means. — " Symbolism,'' 
John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C.J, p. 203, 5th edition, London: Thomas 
Baker, 1906. 

Sacraments, Luther's View of. — Of the seven sacraments recog- 
nized by that church, he [Luther] recognizes, strictly speaking, only 
two: Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and the connection of this con- 
clusion with the central truth he was asserting is a point of deep in- 
terest. Here, too, the one consideration which, in his view, overpowers 
every other is the supreme import of a promise or word of God. But 
there are two institutions under the gospel which are distinguished 
from all others by a visible sign, instituted by Christ himself, as a 
pledge of the divine promise. A sign so instituted, and with such a 
purpose, constitutes a peculiarly precious form of those divine promises 
which are the life of the soul; and for the same reason that the divine 
word and the divine promise are supreme in all other instances, so must 
these be supreme and unique among ceremonies. The distinction, by 
which the two sacraments acknowledged by the Reformed Churches 
are separated from the remaining five of the Roman Church, was thus 
no question of names, but of things. It was a question whether a cere- 
mony instituted by Christ's own command, and embodying his own 
promise in a visible pledge, could for a moment be put on the same 
level with ceremonies, however edifying, which had been established 
solely by the authority or custom of the church. It was of the essence 
of Luther's teaching to assert a paramount distinction between these 
classes of ceremonies, and to elevate the two divine pledges of forgive- 
ness and spiritual life to a height immeasurably superior to all other 
institutions. He hesitates, indeed, whether to allow an exception in 
favor of absolution, as conveying undoubtedly a direct promise from 
Christ; but he finally decides against it, on the ground that it is AV^ith- 
out any visible and divinely appointed sign, and is after all only an 
application of the sacrament of baptism. — " Luther's Primary Works," 
Wace and Buchheim, pp. 444, 445. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1896. 

Sacraments, Refoemeks' Views of the. — Different as the views of 
the Reformers at this time still were in regard to the import of the sac- 
raments, and especially of the Lord's Supper, the leaders of the Refor 
mation, consistently with their doctrine concerning the Word of God and 
faith, agreed in maintaining that a mere outward participation in the 
sacraments was in itself insufiBcient for salvation; they opposed the doc- 
trine of the opus operatum, and insisted, in this connection as in others, 
upon the requisiteness of a living faith. In rejecting the sacrifice of the 
mass as a repetition of Christ's sacrifice, and in abolishing masses for 
departed souls, the Reformers acted in harmony, under the influence 
both of the Scriptural principle, which is ignorant of such sacrificial 
transactions under the new covenant, and of the material principle of 
reform, which beholds in the death of Jesus a perfect sacrifice, and 
regards the forgiveness of sins as dependent on faith in that one offer- 
ing. — " History of the Reformation," Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Vol. II, p. 149. 
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1879. 

Sadducees. — The probability is that the name is derived from some 
person named "Zadok." The most prominent Zadok in history was 
the Davidic high priest (2 Sam. 8: 17; 15: 24; 1 Kings 1: 35), from 
whom all succeeding high priests claimed to descend. It is in harmony 
with this, that in the New Testament the Sadducees are the party to 
whom the high priests belonged. . . . Our main authorities for the 



SADDUCEES, TENETS OF 45 7 

teaching of the Sadducees are the New Testament and Josephus. Ac- 
cording to the former, the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the 
body, and did not believe in angels or spirits. Matt. 22: 23; Acts 23: 8. 
More can be learned from Josephus, but his evidence is to be received 
with caution, as he was a Pharisee, and, moreover, had the idea that the 
Sadducees were to be paralleled with the Epicureans. The Talmud is 
late. Before even the Mishna was committed to writing (c. 200 a. d.) 
the Sadducees had ceased to exist; before the Gemara was completed 
(c. 700 A. D.) every valid tradition of their opinions must have vanished. 
— The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited hy James 
Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. IV, art. " Sadducees," p. 2659. 

Sadducees, Tenets of. — The sect of the Sadducees is by some 
writers considered as the most ancient of the Jewish sects; though 
others havp supposed that the Sadducees and Pharisees gradually grew 
up together. This sect derives its appellation from Sadok, or Zadok, 
the disciple and successor of Antigonus Sochaeus, who lived above two 
hundred (Dr. Prideaux says two hundred and sixty-three) years before 
Christ; and who taught his pupils to " be not as servants, who wait 
upon their master for the sake of reward, but to be like servants who 
wait upon their master, not for the sake of reward," but that they 
should let the fear of the Lord be in them. Unable to comprehend 
a doctrine so spiritual, Sadok deduced from it the inference that neither 
reward nor punishment is to be expected in a future life. The follow- 
ing are the principal tenets of the Sadducees: 

1. That there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit (Matt. 
22: 23; Acts 23: 8), and that the soul of man perishes together with 
the body. 

2. That there is no fate or overruling providence, but that all men 
enjoy the most ample freedom of action; in other words, the absolute 
power of doing either good or evil, according to their own choice; 
hence they were very severe judges. 

3. They paid no regard whatever to any tradition, adhering strictly 
to the letter of Scripture, but preferring the five books of Moses to the 
rest. [p. 367] . . . 

In point of numbers, the Sadducees were an inconsiderable sect; 
but their numerical deficiency was amply compensated by the dignity 
and eminence of those who embraced their tenets, and who were per- 
sons of the first distinction. Several of them were advanced to the 
high priesthood. They do not, however, appear to have aspired, gen- 
erally, to public offices. Josephus affirms that scarcely any business of 
the state was transacted by them; and that, when they were in the 
magistracy, they generally conformed to the measures of the Pharisees, 
though unwilling, and out of pure necessity; for otherwise they would 
not have been endured by the multitude. — "An Introduction to the 
Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,'' Thomas Hartwell 
Home, B. D., Vol. Ill, pp. 367, 368. London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

Samaritans. — In the neighborhood of Samaria was a people who 
were descended in part from Hebrews whom Sargon did not carry away 
and in part from the Gentiles whom he brought in. These people wor- 
shiped Jehovah. (See 2 Kings 17: 24-34.) When the little Jewish 
state had been re-established at Jerusalem, they wished to participate 
in Jewish worship and to be recognized as good Jews. Since they were 
not of pure Hebrew descent, the Jews would not permit this, so they 
at last desisted, built a temple to Jehovah on Mt. Gerizim (see John 
4: 20), and became a large and flourishing sect. They based their 
worship on the Pentateuch, and were so much like the Jews that there 



458 SANHEDRIN 

was constant friction between them. This friction is reflected in Luke 
9: 51-54; John 4: 9, and in many passages of the Talmud. It was this 
sect that occupied Samaria in the time of Christ, and made it in his 
day a distinct division of the country. — "ArcJiwology and the Bible,^' 
George A. Barton, Ph. D., LL. D., pp. 118, 119. Philadelphia: American 
Sunday-School Union, copyright 1916. 

They [the Samaritans] were descended from an intermixture of the 
ten tribes with the Gentile nations. This origin rendered them odious 
to the Jews, who refused to acknowledge them as Jewish citizens, or to 
permit them to assist in rebuilding the temple, after their return from 
the Babylonish captivity. In consequence of this rejection, as well as 
of other causes of dissension, the Samaritans erected a temple on Mt. 
G-erizim, and instituted sacrifices according to the prescriptions of the 
Mosaic law. Hence arose that inveterate schism and enmity between 
the two nations, so frequently mentioned or alluded to in the New Tes- 
tament. The Samaritans (who still exist but are greatly reduced 
in numbers) reject all the sacred books of the Jews except the Penta- 
teuch, or five books of Moses. Of this they preserve copies in the ancient 
Hebrew characters; which, as there has been no friendly intercourse 
between them and the Jews since the Babylonish captivity, there can 
be no doubt were the same that were in use before that event, though 
subject to such variations as will always be occasioned by frequent 
transcribing. And so inconsiderable are the variations from our pres- 
ent copies (which were those of the Jews), that by this means we have 
a proof that these important books have been preserved uncorrupted for 
the space of nearly three thousand years, so as to leave no room to 
doubt that they are the same which were actually written by Moses.' — 
"An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy 
Scriptures," Thomas Hartwell Home, B. D., Vol. II, Part I, pp. 42, 4S. 
London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

Sanhedrin. — The Sanhedrin was, at and before the time of Christ, 
the name for the highest Jewish tribunal, of seventy-one members, in 
Jerusalem, and also for the lower tribunals, of twenty-three members, 
of which Jerusalem had two. ... In the New Testament the word 
sometimes, especially when used in the plural (Matt. 10: 17; Mark 
13: 9; Sanh. i, 5), means simply "court of justice," i. e., any judica- 
tory (Matt. 5: 22). But in most cases it is used to designate the supreme 
Jewish Court of Justice in Jerusalem, in which the process against our 
Lord was carried on, and before which the apostles (especially Peter 
and John, Stephen, and Paul) had to justify themselves. . . . 

There is lack of positive historical information as to the origin 
of the Sanhedrin. According to Jewish tradition (cf. Sanh. i, 6), it 
was constituted by Moses (Num. 11: 16-24) and was reorganized by 
Ezra immediately after the return from exile (fc. the Targum to Cant. 
6: 1). But there is no historical evidence to show that previous to the 
Grecian period there existed an organized aristocratic governing tribu- 
nal among the Jews. Its beginning is to be placed at the period in 
which Asia was convulsed by Alexander the Great and his successors. 
. . . The Sanhedrin was abolished after the destruction of Jerusalem 
(70 A. D.). — The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited 
by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. IV, art. " Sanhedrin," pp. 2688, 2689. 

Sanhedrin ( "l^"i"inJD ) : Hebrew-Aramaic term originally designat- 
ing only the assembly at Jerusalem that constituted the highest politi- 
cal magistracy of the country. ... In the Talmudic sources the 
" Great " Sanhedrin at Jerusalem is so called in contradistinction to 



SATAN, DOCTRINE OF 459 

other bodies designated by that name; and it was generally assumed 
that this Great Sanhedrin was identical with the Sanhedrin at Jerusa- 
lem which is mentioned in the non-Talmudic sources, in the Gospels, 
and in Josephus. [p. 41] . . . 

The Religious Sanhedrin : This body, which met in the hall of hewn 
stone and was called also " the Great Bet Din " or simply " the Bet 
Din in the hall of hewn stone" (Tosef., Hor. i, 3; Tosef., Sotah, ix, 1; 
Yer. Sanh. i, 19c), was invested with the highest religious authority. 
According to Talmudic tradition it originated in the Mosaic period, the 
seventy elders who were associated with Moses in the government of 
Israel at his request (Num. 11: 4-31) forming together with him the 
first Sanhedrin (Sanh. i, 6). The institution is said to have existed 
without interruption from that time onward, [p. 43] ... 

After the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem and the downfall 
of the Jewish state, the Academy of Jabneh was organized as the su- 
preme religious authority, being therefore regarded as the continua- 
tion of the Great Bet Din in the hall of hewn stone. The later Jewish 
academies under the presidency of the patriarchs of the family of 
Hillel — hence, down to the end of the fourth century — were also 
regarded as the continuation of that institution, [p. 44] — The Jewish 
Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, art, " Sanhedrin,*' pp. 41, 43, 44, 

Satan, Doctrine of. — The agency of Satan in the fall of man has 
been controverted on the plea that, had such been in operation, it ought 
to have been mentioned. But the absence of any such mention may be 
explained on the ground that it is not the intention of the holy writers 
to give any information respecting the existence of the devil, but rather 
to give an account of his real manifestation, to which, afterw6,rd, the 
doctrine connected itself. The judgment of the reader should not, as it 
were, be anticipated. The simple fact is communicated to him, in order 
that, from it, he may form his own opinion. 

Further: it has been asserted that in the entire Old Testament, 
and until the time of the Babylonian captivity, no trace of an evil spirit 
is to be found, and that hence it cannot be conceived that his existence 
is here presupposed. But this assertion may now be regarded as obso- 
lete and without foundation. Closely connected with the affirmation, to 
which allusion has just been made, is the opinion which assigns the book 
of Job to the time of the captivity, an opinion which is now almost 
universally abandoned, [p. 11] . . . 

But we must advert to two additional considerations: First, to 
every one who is in the least familiar with the territory of divine reve- 
lation, and who has any conception of the relation in which the books 
of Moses stand to the whole succeeding revelation, it will, a priori, be 
inconceivable, that a doctrine which afterward occupies so prominent 
a position in the revealed books should not have already existed, in the 
germ at least, in the books of Moses. Secondly, we should altogether 
lose the origin and foundation of the doctrine concerning Satan, if he 
be removed from, or explained away in, the history of the fall. That 
this doctrine cannot by any means be found in the book of Job, has 
already been pointed out by Hofmann, who remarks in the " Schriftbe- 
weis " (i, S. 378), that Satan appears in this book as a well-known being 
— as much so as are the sons of God. Nor is Leviticus 16 an appropriate 
place for the introduction for the first time of this doctrine into the con- 
sciousness of the people. The doctrinal essence of the symbolical action 
there prescribed is this: that Satan, the enemy of the congregation of 
God, has no power over those who are reconciled to God; that with their 
sins forgiven by God, they may joyfully appear before, and mock and tri- 
umph over, him. The whole ritual must have had in it something alto- 



460 SATAN, DOCTRINE OF 

gether strange for the congregation of the Lord, if they had not already 
known of him (Satan) from some other source. The questions: Who is 
Asael? What have we to do with him? must have forced themselves 
upon every one's mind. It is not the custom of Scripture to introduce 
its doctrines so abruptly — to prescribe any duty which is destitute of 
the solid foundation of previous instruction. 

If thus we may consider it as proved: (1) that the serpent was an 
agent in the temptation, and (2) that it served only as an instrument 
to Satan, — the real tempter, — than we have also thereby proved that the 
curse denounced against the tempter must have a double sense. It must, 
in the first place, refer to the instrument; but, in its chief import, it 
must bear upon the real tempter, for it was properly he alone who had 
done that which merited the punishment and the curse, [pp. 13, 14] . . . 

The opinion which has been again of late defended by Hofmann 
and Baumgarten, that the serpent had, before the fall, the same shape 
as after it, — only that, after the fall, it possesses as a punishment 
what, before the fall, was its nature — stands plainly opposed to the 
context. Even, a priori, and in accordance with Satan's usual mode of 
proceeding, it is probable that he who loves to transform himself into 
an angel of light, should have chosen an attractive and charming instru- 
ment of temptation. This view loses all that is strange in it, if only we 
consider the change of the serpent, not as an isolated thing, but in con- 
nection with the great change which, after the fall of man, affected the 
whole nature (comp. Gen. 1: 31), according to which the entire animal 
creation had, previously to the fall, impressed upon it the image of 
man's innocence and peace, and the law of destruction did not pervade 
it (Gen. 3: 17; Rom. 8: 20); and if only we keep in mind that, before 
the fall, the whole animal world was essentially different from what it 
is now — so that we cannot by any means think of forming to ourselves 
a distinct image of the serpent, as Luther and others have done. 

The serpent is thus, by its disgusting form and by the degradation 
of its whole being, doomed to be the visible representative of the king- 
dom of darkness, and of its head, to whom it had served as an instru- 
ment. But the words, when applied to the head himself, give expression 
to the idea: "Extreme contempt, shame, and abasement shall be thy 
lot." Thus Calmet remarks on this passage: "This enemy of mankind 
crawls, as it were, on his belly, on account of the shame and disgrace 
to which he is reduced." Satan imagined that, by means of the fall 
of man, he would enlarge his kingdom, and extend his power. But, to 
the eye of God, the matter appeared in a totally different light, because, 
along with the fall, he beheld the redemption, [pp. 15, 16] — " Ghristology 
of the Old Testament," E. W. Hengstenherg, translated hy James Martin, 
B. A., Yol. I, pv- 11-16. Edinburgh: T. d T. Clark, 1854. 

Schism, The Great, Protestant View of. — Only once after this 
period [twelfth century] did a papal schism occur in the Roman Church, 
and it agitated and shattered the church as no other. Because of its 
long duration (1378-1429), it was styled the "Great Papal Schism." 
After the death of Gregory XI, 1378, who had restored the papal resi- 
dence to Rome, the sixteen cardinals then present in Rome elected, 
April 8, Archbishop Bartholomew of Bari as Pope Urban VI. However, 
he had embittered some of the cardinals through gross harshness and 
indiscriminate censure of prevalent abuses in the college of cardinals 
and in the Curia. Therefore a quota of cardinals, thirteen in number, 
who had betaken themselves to Avignon, elected, September 20, Cardi- 
nal Robert of Geneva as Pope Clement VII, affirming that the election 
of Urban VI was invalid on account of the coercion brought to bear 



SCHISM, THE GREAT 461 

against them by the population of Rome. In Italy, nevertheless, public 
sentiment continued overwhelmingly in favor of Urban VI, while Ger- 
many, England, Denmark, and Sweden also sided with him. On the 
other hand, Clement VII soon became acknowledged by France; and 
after he had transferred his residence to Avignon, French influence also 
contrived to draw Scotland, Savoy, and later Castile, Aragon, and 
Navarre to his cause. Thus two popes were arrayed one against the 
other. Each had his own college of cardinals, thus affording a protrac- 
tion of the schism by means of new papal elections. Urban VI was 
followed by Boniface IX (1389-1404); Innocent VIII (1404-06); and 
Gregory XII (1406-15). After Clement VII, in 1394, came Benedict XIII. 
The Papacy having shown itself incapable of abating the schism, 
the only expedient was the convening of a general council. This assem- 
bled at Pisa, in 1408, and the delegates sat from the start in common 
accord. Though the council deposed both Gregory XII and Benedict 
XIII, and elected in their place Alexander V, who was succeeded in 
1410 by John XXIII, this procedure failed to stop the schism. The two 
former popes asserted themselves so that the church now had three 
popes. The futility of the Council of Pisa led to the convocation of the 
Council of Constance (1414-18). In 1415 this declared that, as repre- 
sentative organ of the ecumenical church, it possessed the supreme 
ecclesiastical authority, and every one, even the Pope, must yield obe- 
dience. In the same year, accordingly, it deposed John XXIII, and 
again declared Benedict XIII as a schismatic to have forfeited his right 
to the papal see. With the election of Martin V, which took place 
Nov. 11, 1417, by action of the duly appointed conciliar deputation, the 
schism was practically terminated, though not absolutely ended until 
1429; for Benedict XIII, though almost wholly forsaken, defied the 
sentence of deposition as long as he lived (d. 1424); and Canon ^gl- 
dius Munoz of Barcelona, whom the few cardinals that lingered with 
Benedict elected as Clement VIII, did not relinquish his dignity until 
five years after. — The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, Vol. X, art. " Schism" pp. 2S8, 239. 

Schism, The Great, Roman Catholic View of. — The Western 
Schism was only a temporary misunderstanding, even though it com- 
pelled the church for forty years to seek its true head; it was fed by 
politics and passions, and was terminated by the assembling of the 
Councils of Pisa and Constance. — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Toh XIII, 
art. " Schism," p. 5S9. 

Schism, The Great, Effects of. — But, at any rate, this much can 
be said in palliation, that all these disputes were settled somehow; and, 
right or wrong, one pope always obtained final recognition, except in 
the schism of 1046, when three rival popes were all set aside, and a 
new one, Clement II, appointed. Not so when we come to the " Great 
Schism," which broke out in 1378, after the death of Gregory XI, and 
lasted till 1409, or rather till 1417. It is needless to go into the details 
of this prolonged strife, and it will be enough to say that during its 
continuance there were two (and sometimes three) rival lines of 
pontiffs kept up, severally followed by whole nations on entirely politi- 
cal, not theological, grounds, and that no one can say now which claim- 
ant at any time was the true Pope; while canonized saints were found 
on opposite sides of the question, St. Catharine of Siena, for instance, 
holding to the Italian succession, and St. Vincent Ferrer to the com- 
peting line; so that St. Antoninus of Florence has remarked that per- 
sons illustrious for miracles took opposite sides in the controversy, 
and that the question cannot be settled now. Since this " Great Schism," 



462 SENNACHERIB, CAMPAIGN OP 

whose lessons were severe, only one anti-pope, Felix V, is on record. — 
" Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome,'' Richard Fred- 
erick Littledale, LL. D., D. G. L., pp. 194, 195. London: Societif for 
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1905. 

Schism, The Great, Consequences of. — Hardly had the first storm 
which assailed the Papacy during the long residence of the popes at 
Avignon [1309-1378), depriving it of its political supremacy, passed 
away, when a new storm broke over its head, depriving it of still more 
of its greatness, and nearly obliterating its existence altogether. This 
time the storm was not occasioned by a residence in a foreign country, 
which brought the popes into political dependence on a foreign sov- 
ereign; but it was a storm gathered in a purely ecclesiastical atmos- 
phere, and hence inflicting damage on another side of the Papacy — 
the ecclesiastical independence of the popes. It was, in short, no other 
event than that known as the Great Schism of the West [1378-1417]. 
Of that event the disastrous effects were far-reaching and widespread. 
The shock which the Schism itself produced on the minds of the clergy 
and the laity was but small part of the result; and most momentous 
wfere its after-consequences. For that Schism called into being those 
independent councils of the West, which rudely assailed the sovereign 
Pontiff; during that Schism, too, those abuses became rife which called 
forth on a large scale, though not for the first time, the demand for 
reform, and thus hastened on the event which involved the Papacy in 
ruin. — " The See of Rome in the Middle Ages," Rev. Oswald J. Reichel, 
B. C. L., M. A., pp. 439, 440. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 18707 

Sect. — Sect is in the New Testament the translation of hairesis, 
from haired, "to take," "to choose;" also translated "heresy," not 
heresy in the later ecclesiastical sense, but a school or party, a sect, 
without any bad meaning attached to it. The word is applied to schools 
of philosophy; to the Pharisees and Sadducees among the Jews who 
adhered to a common religious faith and worship; and to the Chris- 
tians. — The International Standard Bihle Encyclopedia, edited by James 
Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. IV, art. " Sect," p. 2711. 

Sennacherib's Report of Campaign Against Hezekiah, — " Because 
Hezekiah, king of Judah," says the Assyrian monarch, " would not sub- 
mit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms and by 
the might of my power I took forty-six of his strong fenced cities; 
and of the smaller towns which were scattered about I took and 
plundered a countless number. And from these places I captured and 
carried off as spoil 200,150 people, old and young, male and female, to- 
gether with horses and mares, asses and camels, oxen and sheep, a 
countless multitude. And Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, 
his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city 
to hem him in, and raising banks of earth against the gates, so as to 
prevent escape. ... 

" Then upon this Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my 
arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem 
with thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, and 
divers treasures, a rich and immense booty. . . . All these things 
were brought to me at Nineveh, the seat of my government, Hezekiah 
having sent them by way of tribute, and as a token of his submission 
to my power." — " The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern 
World," George Itawlinson, M. A., Yol. II, pp. 161, 162. Newi York: 
Dodd, Mead & Co. 

And Hezekiah, king of Judah, who had not bowed down at my feet, 
forty-six of his strong cities, his castles, and the smaller towns in 



SERVITUS, BURNING OF 463 

their neighborhood beyond number, with warlike engines ... I at- 
tacked and captured. Two hundred thousand one hundred and fifty 
people, small and great, male and female, horses, mares, asses, camels, 
oxen, and sheep beyond number, for the midst of them I carried off and 
distributed them as spoil. He himself, like a bird in a cage, inside 
Jerusalem his royal city, I shut him up: siege towers against him I 
constructed (for he had given command to renew the bulwarks of the 
great gate of his city). His cities which I plundered, from his king- 
dom I cut off, and to Mitinti king of Ashdod, Padiah king of Ekron, 
and Zilli-bel king of Gaza I gave them, I diminished his kingdom. Be- 
yond the former scale of their yearly gifts their tribute and gifts to my 
Majesty I augmented and imposed upon them. He himself Hezekiah, 
the fearful splendor of my Majesty had overwhelmed him. The work- 
men, soldiers, and builders whom for the fortification of Jerusalem his 
royal city he had collected within it, now carried tribute and with 
thirty talents of gold, 800 talents of silver; woven cloth, scarlet, em- 
broidered; precious stones of large size; couches of ivory, movable 
thrones of ivory, skins of buffaloes, teeth of buffaloes, dan wood, ku 
wood, a great treasure of every kind, and his daughters, and the male 
and female inmates of his palace, male slaves and female slaves, unto 
Nineveh my royal city after me he sent; to pay tribute and do homage 
he sent his envoy. — " The Library of Original Sources," edited by Oliver 
J. Thatcher, Vol. I, pp, 417, 418. Milivaukee, Wis.: University Research 
Extension Company, copyright 1907. 

Sennacherib, Death or. — A cylinder recently acquired (1910) by 
and now in the British Museum, states: "On the twentieth day of the 
month Tebet (Dec), Sennacherib, king of Assyria, his son slew him 
in a rebellion." The rebellion (it says) lasted till the twenty-eighth 
of Sivan (June) of next year, "when Esarhaddon his son sat on 
the throne of Assyria." — " The Companion Bible," Part II, " Joshua to 
Job," p. 520. London: Oxford University Press. 

Servetus, Calvin's Responsibility for the Burning of. — Calvin's 
influence in Geneva amounted to less during the trial of Servetus than 
at any other time, and it is therefore absolutely unhistorical to rep- 
resent Calvin as the chief figure in the proceedings against the Span- 
iard. After the arrest and arraignment of Servetus, the process took 
its course according to law, and Calvin was simply an important 
witness and instrument in the case. After the trial had ended, Calvin 
did everything in his power to effect a commutation of the horrible 
sentence, but without avail, for neither Servetus nor the city au- 
thorities would yield a single step. Stahelin says it may sound para- 
doxical, but is nevertheless true, that Rome is responsible also for the 
Protestant stakes and scaffolds, because for centuries it inculcated prin- 
ciples and practices among Christians, in relation to heresy, which 
emanated from a world view whose sole object was dominion, unity, 
uniformity, conformity, and ownership of conscience. 

The Reformers could not at once free themselves from the aims 
and influence of ecclesiastical power under which they grew up, and 
which controlled them to an amazing degree, in spite of all the light 
they had attained through the new learning and from the Scriptures. 
To us the thought that any one should be burned to death for opinion's 
sake is horrifying, and our sense of justice and freedom is outraged 
by the crime itself. It is to be deplored that Servetus died through 
such causes, under such circumstances, and in the midst of such 
surroundings. It is impossible to change men's minds, ideas, or opinions 
by mutilations and burnings. A man may be frightened into a recanta- 



464 SILOAM INSCRIPTION 

tion by the horror of such a punishment, but he cannot thus be forced 
to erase his mental impressions, and alter an inwrought temperament or 
disposition. By the threatened torture he is merely terrorized into 
telling a lie, into being untrue to himself, however mistaken, at bottom, 
he may be in his fancies and contentions. 

Both Catholics and Protestants looked upon Servetus as we look 
upon the anarchist. There existed a confused overlapping and in- 
termingling of the functions of church and state, which men since then, 
in the onward march of liberty, have cleared away. The Greeks poisoned 
Socrates, the philosopher of the conscience, because they imagined that 
he corrupted the youth of Athens. Brutus and his friends slew Julius 
Caesar, the idol of the populace, because he was ambitious. Jews and 
Romans crucified Jesus of Nazareth, the Saviour of the world, because 
he made himself equal with God and founded a new kingdom. The pagan 
emperors hurled the early followers of Jesus to the lions in the arena, 
and tortured them to death by thousands, because in that kingdom they 
found eternal life. The Roman Catholics and the emperor Sigismund, 
by an act of the Council of Constance, burned John Huss and Jerome 
of Prague because they tried to purify the church. For similar reasons 
blood flowed in Paris on St. Bartholomew's night, the fires were lighted 
on Smithfield Common, and Philip II declared war against the Nether- 
lands. And finally Servetus suffered death at the stake in Protestant 
Geneva because he blasphemed the holy Trinity and befriended the 
seditious Libertines. But men ought to cease to make a mockery of 
historic fact by blaming this terrible deed solely and alone upon the 
Genevan Reformer, John Calvin, who imperiled his own life to defend 
the eternal Sonship of Jesus. — " Modernism and the Reformation," 
John Benjamin Rust, Ph. D., D. D., pp. 139-141. New York: Fleming H. 
Revell Company. 

Be the matter twisted and turned as it may, the burning of Servetus 
will ever remain a dark spot on the history of the Reformation, and in 
the life of Calvin. We must not, however, charge on Calvin the whole 
odium of an act in which he was supported by the age in which he lived, 
or at least by a large proportion of its representative men. How many 
Anabaptists were beheaded and drowned in the age of the Reformation, 
whom no one ever thinks of mentioning! Why is it that the execution 
of Servetus alone is always harped upon as a misdeed of Calvin's? 
Possibly, because the horrible manner of his death serves, more than 
any other, to recall the horrors of the Inquisition, and the executions 
of Huss and Savonarola. And moreover, Calvin's personal participa- 
tion in the details of the process appears in a manner so conspicuous 
as to enable us to understand how the antipathy of later generations 
to such bloody judgments upon heretics became connected,' more closely 
than is consistent with justice, with a previously existent antipathy to 
the harsh and awe-inspiring character of the Genevese Reformer. — 
" History of the Reformation/' Dr. K. R. Hagenhach, Vol. II, p. 340. 
Edinburgh: T. d T. Clark, 1879. 

Siloam Inscription. — In the summer of 1880, one of the native 
pupils of Mr. Schick, a German architect long settled in Jerusalem, 
was playing with some other lads in the so-called Pool of Siloam, and 
while wading up a channel cut in the rock which leadsi into the Pool, 
slipped and fell into the water. On rising to the surface, he noticed 
what looked like letters on the rock which formed the southern wall of 
the channel. He told Mr. Schick of what he had seen; and the latter, 
on visiting the spot, found that an ancient inscription, ' concealed for 
the most part by the water, actually existed there, [p. 80] . 



SILiOAM INSCRIPTION 465 

The inscription occupies the under part of an artificial tablet in the 
wall of rock, about nineteen feet from where the conduit opens out upon 
the Pool of Siloam, and on the right-hand side of one who enters it. 
After lowering the level of the water, Mr. Schick endeavored to take a 
copy of it; but, as not only the letters of the text, but every flaw in the 
rock were filled with a deposit of lime left by the water, all he could 
send to Europe was a collection of unmeaning scrawls. Besides the 
difficulty of distinguishing the letters, it was also necessary to sit 
in the mud and water, and to work by the dim light of a candle, as the 
place where the inscription is engraved is perfectly dark. All this 
rendered it impossible for any one not acquainted with Phoenician 
palaeography to make an accurate transcript. The first intelligible copy 
accordingly was made by Professor Sayce after several hours of careful 
study; but this too contained several doubtful characters, the real forms 
of which could only be determined by the removal of the calcareous 
matter with which they were coated. In March, 1881, six weeks after 
Sayce's visit, Dr. Guthe arrived in Jerusalem, and after making a more 
complete facsimile of the inscription than had previously been possible, 
removed the deposit of lime by means of an acid, and so revealed the 
original appearance of the tablet. Letters which had previously been 
concealed now became visible, and the exact shapes of them all could be 
observed. First a cast, and then squeezes of the text were taken; and 
the scholars of Europe had at last in their hands an exact copy of the 
old text. [p. 81] . . . 

It is most unfortunate that the inscription contains no indication 
of date; but the forms of the letters used in it show that it cannot be 
very much later in age than the Moabite Stone. Indeed, some of the 
letters exhibit older forms than those of the Moabite Stone; but this 
may be explained by the supposition that the scribes of Jerusalem were 
more conservative, more disposed to retain old forms, than the scribes 
of King Mesha. The prevalent opinion of scholars is that the tunnel 
and consequently the inscription in it were executed in the reign of 
Hezekiah. According to the Chronicler (2 Chron. 32: 30), Hezekiah 
" stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down 
to the west side of the city of David; " and we read in 2 Kings 20: 20, 
that " he made a pool and a conduit, and brought water into the city." 
The object of the laborious undertaking is very plain. The Virgin's 
Spring, the only natural source near Jerusalem, lay outside the walls, 
and in time of war might easily pass into the hands of the enemy. The 
Jewish kings, therefore, did their best to seal up this spring, which 
must be the Chronicler's " upper watercourse of Gihon," and to bring 
its waters by subterranean passages inside the city walls. Besides the 
tunnel which contains the inscription, another tunnel has been dis- 
covered, which also communicates with the Virgin's Spring. But it is 
tempting to suppose that the most important of these — the tunnel 
which contains the inscription — must be the one which Hezekiah 
made. 

The supposition, however, is rendered uncertain by a statement of 
Isaiah (8: 6). While Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, was still reigning, 
Isaiah uttered a prophecy in which he made allusion to " the waters 
of Shiloah that go softly." Now this can hardly refer to anything else 
than the gently flowing stream which still runs through the tunnel of 
Siloam. In this case the conduit would have been in existence before 
the time of Hezekiah; and since we know of no earlier period when a 
great engineering work of the kind could have been executed until we 
go back to the reign of Solomon, it is possible that the inscription may 
actually be of this ancient date. The inference is supported by the name 
Shiloah, which probably means " the tunnel," and would have been 
30 



466 SODOM AND GOMORRAH 

given to the locality in consequence of the conduit which here pierced 
the rock. It was not likely that when David and Solomon were fortify- 
ing Jerusalem, and employing Phoenician architects upon great public 
buildings there, they would have allowed the city to depend wholly upon 
rain cisterns for its water supply, [pp. 82-84] — " Fresh Light from 
the Ancient Monuments" A. H. 8ayce, M. A., pp. 80-84. London: The 
Religious Tract Society, 1890. 

Sodom and Gomorrah, Overthrow of. — An Accadian poem de- 
scribing the rain of fire which destroyed these cities, and the escape of 
Lot, as described in Genesis. (Translated by Rev. A. H. Sayce from 
tablets in the British Museum.) 

An overthrow from the midst of the deep there came. The fated 
punishment from the midst of heaven descended. A storm like a 
plummet the earth (overwhelmed). To the four winds the destroying 
flood like fire did burn. The inhabitants of the citie(s) it had caused 
to be tormented; their bodies it consumed. In city and country it spread 
death, and the fiames as they rose overthrew. Freeman and slave were 
equal, and the high places it filled. In heaven and earth like a thunder- 
storm it had rained; a prey it made. A place of refuge the gods hastened 
to, and in a throng collected. Its mighty (onset) they fled from, and 
like a garment it concealed (mankind). They (feared), and death 
(overtook them). 

(Their) feet and hands (it embraced). . . . Their body it con- 
sumed . . . the city, its foundations it defiled. ... in breath, his 
mouth he filled. As for this man, a loud voice was raised; the mighty 
lightning flash descended. During the day it flashed; grievously (it 
fell). . . . — "The Library of Original Sources," edited hy Oliver J, 
Thatcher, Vol. I, pp. 434, 435. Milwaukee, Wis.: University Research 
Extension Company, copyright 1907. 

Soul, Living, Meaning of the Term. — The expression " living soul," 
as used in Genesis, is often taken to indicate an order of being superior 
to the brute, and is the text of many an argument to prove the im,mor- 
tality of the soul. The incorrectness of this assumption will be readily 
seen by referring to Genesis 1: 20, 21, 24, and elsewhere, in which pas- 
sages the words translated "living soul" are applied also to the entire 
lower creation. They are used indifferently of man and beast to express 
animal life in general; and it is in this light that the apostle uses them, 
as the very course of his argument shows. Adam is spoken of as a liv- 
ing soul, not to prove his immortality, but rather his mortality. It is 
by means of the soul that he and all descended from him, are linked 
to this changing and corruptible world, and so become the heirs of cor- 
ruption. The only superiority ascribed to man in the history of crea- 
tion, is found in the fact that " God breathed into him the breath of 
life," and in this it is intimated that in the act of becoming a living 
soul, man at the same time was endowed with higher capacities, which 
brought him into relationship with God, and made him capable of com- 
muning with him, and so of rising to a spiritual existence. But the 
possibilities here involved for leading a true spiritual life, could only 
be carried out by his abiding in fellowship with God and partaking of 
the divine Spirit. And had this been maintained by obedience, there 
is every reason to believe that the higher life of the spirit would have 
glorified the lower and made it partaker of immortality without the 
intervention of death. But by reason of the fall, this possibility was cut 
off, and man becoming animal (i/'uxik^s [psuchi'kos']) , or as our version 
renders it " natural," in the very elements of his character, or in the 



STEPHEN, DEATH OF 467 

springs of his existence, became at the same time mortal. Herein lay 
the necessity for the new creation through the intervention of a Re- 
deemer who shall be nothing less than a quickening spirit. — " The First 
Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians," Christian Friedrich Kling, translated 
by Daniel W. Poor, D. D., p. 339, 4th edition. New York,: Charles Scril)- 
ner & Co., 1870. 

Stephen, Time of Death of. — Up to the time of the martyrdom of 
Stephen, the gospel met with considerable success among the Jews at 
Jerusalem, both among those resident there and those who visited it 
during that period. Our first inquiry then is, What was the date of 
Stephen's martyrdom? And here, as in all such cases where Scripture 
is not explicit on the subject, the early Christian writers vary widely 
from each other. The martyrdom of Stephen is placed by them at dif- 
ferent periods, varying from less than a year after our Lord's cruci- 
fixion, to seven years after it. Both these extremes are evidently erro- 
neous. The former has, perhaps, arisen from the martyrdom of Stephen 
having taken place at a period of the year about eight or nine months 
after that in which the crucifixion took place. But it is clear that the 
events recorded in the Acts as having preceded the martyrdom of 
Stephen, could not have taken place within this space of time. The 
proceedings of the apostles, as narrated in the 2d, 3d, and 4th chapters, 
must have taken up some little time. Subsequent to these, we read of 
the disciples' selling their lands and bringing the money to the apostles, 
not only those dwelling at Jerusalem, but those who belonged to other 
countries; which certainly would require some time. Then we hear of 
a series of miracles being performed, and of the addition from time to 
time of great multitudes of believers in the Christian faith, until the 
high priest and his followers became alarmed for the result. Acts 5. 
Then we find that a time came when the disciples were so far organized 
into a distinct body, that there was a system of daily ministration 
established for the widows among them (ch. 6: 1, 2); and seven men, 
one of whom is Stephen, are appointed to attend to this matter. After 
this appointment, we are told of a great increase taking place in the 
number of the disciples (6: 7), which we must suppose to have required 
a little time. Then we read of Stephen doing great wonders and miracles 
among the people (6: 8), and carrying on his disputations against oppo- 
nents with such success as to stir up a bitter spirit against himself, 
and to induce them to accuse him before the council; all which must 
have occupied some time. 

Now, if we endeavor to calculate the probable time occupied by all 
these events, we are making, I think, a moderate estimate of its length 
when we say that it must have been at least three years and a half, and 
probably rather more. 

And that the martyrdom of Stephen took place three years after 
the crucifixion, is stated by Syncellus in his Chronicle, and others of 
the ancients. 

A probable confirmation of this date for the martyrdom of Stephen 
may be gained from the period about which St. Paul's conversion on his 
journey to Damascus must have taken place. From his own statements 
in his epistles, compared with the notices respecting him in the Acts, 
it seems probable that his conversion took place about a. d. 36, and 
certainly not before a. d. 35. And if we inspect the account given in 
the Acts of what took place between the martyrdom of Stephen and the 
conversion of St. Paul, we can hardly suppose it to have been more than 
two years. 

Bishop Pearson thinks that Stephen was martyred a. d. 34, and 



468 SUNDAY 

Paul converted on his journey to Damascus at the close of a. d. 35. 
And this I believe to be the true date. 

And as it respects the date of St. Paul's journey to Damascus it is 
not improbable that it might take place upon the removal of Pontius 
Pilate as governor of Judea, which event happened about the autumn 
of A. D. 35, the chief priests being then better able to give authority to 
Paul to go to Damascus on his errand of persecution. 

I incline, therefore, to the supposition that the seven years of mercy 
for establishing the covenant with many of the Jews terminated about 
the time of Stephen's martyrdom, which in all probability was in De- 
cember, A. D. 33, or January, a. d. 34. — " Fulfilled Prophecy,^' Rev. W. 
Goode, D. D., F. 8. A., pp. 234, 235, 2d edition. London: James Nishet 
tC- Co., 1891. 

Sunday, Roman Laws Concerning. — Let the course of all lawsuits 
and all business cease on Sunday, which our fathers have rightly called 
the Lord's day, and let no one try to collect either a public or a private 
debt; and let there be no hearing of disputes by any judges either 
those required to serve by law or those voluntarily chosen by dispu- 
tants. And he is to be held not only infamous but sacrilegious who has 
turned away from the service and observance of holy religion on that 
day. — Codex Theodosianus, XI, 7, 13. Time of Emperors Gratian, Val- 
entinian, and Theodosius. 

On the Lord's day, which is the first day of the week, on Christmas, 
and on the days of Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost, inasmuch as then 
the (white) garments (of Christians) symbolizing the light of heavenly 
cleansing bear witness to the new light of holy baptism, at the time 
also of the suffering of the apostles, the example for all Christians, the 
pleasures of the theaters and games are to be kept from the people in 
all cities, and all the thoughts of Christians and believers are to be occu- 
pied with the worship of God, And if any are kept from that worship 
through the madness of Jewish impiety or the error and insanity of fool- 
ish paganism, let them know that there is one time for prayer and 
another for pleasure. And lest any one should think he is compelled 
by the honor due to our person, as if by the greater necessity of his 
imperial office, or that unless he attempted to hold the games in con- 
tempt of the religious prohibition, he might offend our serenity in 
showing less than the usual devotion toward us; let no one doubt that 
our clemency is revered in the highest degree by humankind when 
the worship of the whole world is paid to the might and goodness of 
God. — Codex Theod., XY, 5. Time of Emperors Theodosius and Caesar 
Valentinian. — " The Lil)rary of Original Sources,'* edited hy Oliver J. 
ThatcJier, Vol. IV, pp. 69, 70. Milwaukee, Wis.: University Research 
Extension Company, copyright 1907. 

We desire that all the people under the rule of our clemency should 
live by that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have 
given to the Romans, and which it is evident that Pope Damasus and 
Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, followed; that 
is that we should believe in the one deity of Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit with equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according to the 
apostolic teaching and the authority of the gospel. — Cod. Theod., XYI, 
1, 2. Time of Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius. 

It is necessary that the privileges which are bestowed for the cul- 
tivation of religion should be given only to followers of the Catholic 
faith. We desire that heretics and schismatics be not only kept from 
these privileges, but be subjected to various fines. — Cod. Theod., XVI, 
5, 1. Time of Emperor Constantine. — Id., p. 70. 



SYliLABUS OF ERRORS 469 

Syllabus of Errors, Extracts fkom. — [The encyclical Quanta Cura, 
published by Pope Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1864, was accompanied by a syllabus 
containing a summary in eighty propositions of various doctrines con- 
demned by that Pontiff. These propositions were based upon ex-cathedrd 
documents put out by the same Pope at various times during his 
pontificate. 

In reading this document it should be remembered that every 
proposition is from the Roman Catholic standpoint an error. In his 
book, " Der Papst und die Modernen Ideen " (Vienna, 1865), the Jesuit 
Schrader changes these liberal statements condemned in the Sylla- 
bus into the orthodox form by putting those which the church would 
assert as opposed to those condemned. For example, according to 
Schrader, proposition 55 reads thus: "The church is neither to be sepa- 
rated from the state nor the state from the church." This is the Roman 
Catholic view on the relationship of church and state. The other propo- 
sitions are similarly handled by Schrader. It is therefore legitimate to 
conclude in a general way that the Roman Catholic Church teaches the 
very opposite of the error condemned in every one of these propositions. 

Different Roman Catholic writers of considerable standing take 
varying views upon the authority of this Syllabus of Errors. Two brief 
quotations will illustrate this. Charles Coupe, S. J., writing on " The 
Temporal Power," in the American Catholic Quarterly Review, October, 
1901, asserts that " the Syllabus, if not formally, is at any rate prac- 
tically infallible." In contrast with this is the statement of John Henry 
Newman, the celebrated English convert to Romanism, who in his "Letter 
to the Duke of Norfolk" (pages 79, 80) says: "The Syllabus is not an 
oflacial act, because it is not signed, for instance 'Datum Romcd [given 
at Rome], Pius P. P. IX,' or * suh annulo Piscatoris [under the ring of 
the fisherman],' or in some other way; it is not a personal, for he does 
not address his ' Venerabiles Fratres [venerable brethren] ' or ' Dilecto 
Filio [beloved son],' or speak as ' Piu^ Episcopus [Pius Bishop]; ' it 
is not immediate, for it comes to the bishop only through the cardinal 
minister of state. . . . The Syllabus makes no claim to be acknowledged 
as the word of the Pope." 

The Syllabus is generally acknowledged to be a document of great 
authority, and is doubtless regarded as infallible by the ultramontane 
partisans. We translate the following articles from it. — Editobs.] 

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall 
believe true, guided by the light of reason. 

17. We may entertain at least a well-founded hope for the eternal 
salvation of all those who are in no manner in the true church of 
Christ. 

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same 
true Christian religion, in which it is possible to be equally pleasing to 
God as in the Catholic Church. 

21. The church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the 
religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. 

23. The Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have exceeded the 
limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even 
committed errors in defining matters of faith and morals. 

24. The church has not the power of availing herself of force, or 
any direct or indirect temporal power. 

27. The ministers of the church, and the Roman Pontiff, ought to 
be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over temporal 
affairs. 

30. The immunity of the church and of ecclesiastical persons derives 
its origin from civil law. 

31. Ecclesiastical courts for temporal causes, of the clergy, whether 



4 TO SYLLABUS OF ERRORS 

civil or criminal, ought by all means to be abolished, even without the 
concurrence and against the protest of the holy see. 

37. National churches can be established, after being withdrawn and 
plainly separated from the authority of the Roman Pontiff. 

38. Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed 
to the division of the church into Eastern and Western. 

39. The commonwealth is the origin and source of all rights, and 
possesses rights which are not circumscribed by any limits. 

40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the well-being 
and interests of society. 

45. The entire direction of public schools, in which the youth of 
Christian states are educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case 
of episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the civil power, and 
belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized 
as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the 
arrangement of the studies, the taking of degrees, or the choice and 
approval of the teachers. 

47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools 
open to the children of all classes, and, generally, all public institutes 
intended for instruction in letters and philosophy, and for conducting 
the education of the young, should be freed from all ecclesiastical 
authority, government, and interference, and should be fully subject to 
the civil and political power, in conformity with the will of rulers and 
the prevalent opinions of the age. 

55. The church ought to be separated from the state, and the state 
from the church. 

77. In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic 
religion shall be held as the only religion of the state, to the exclusion 
of all other modes of worship. 

78. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some countries 
called Catholic, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the 
public exercise of their own worship. 

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of wor- 
ship, and the full power given to all of overtly and publicly manifesting 
their opinions and their ideas, of all kinds whatsoever, conduce more 
easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to the propa- 
gation of the pest of indifferentism. 

80. The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to, and 
agree with, progress, liberalism, and civilization as lately introduced. 

Note. — The eighty propositions in the original Latin are found in the 
" Theologia Moralis " of Ligorio, Vol. II, pp. 454-461, 3d edition. — Eds. 

Talmud. — Talmud ( ll^sVn ) : Name of two works which have 
been preserved to posterity as the product of the Palestinian and Baby- 
lonian schools during the amoraic period, which extended from the 
third to the fifth century c. e. [Common Era]. One of these compila- 
tions is entitled "Talmud Yerushalmi " (Jerusalem Talmud), and the 
other "Talmud Babli" (Babylonian Talmud). Used alone, the word 
" Talmud " generally denotes " Talmud Babli," but it frequently serves 
as a generic designation for an entire body of literature, since the 
Talmud marks the culmination of the writings of Jewish tradition, of 
which it is, from a historical point of view, the most important pro- 
duction. — TTie Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. ** Talmudi,'' p. 1. 

Talmud, Value of. — For both Christians and Jews the Talmud is 
of value for the following reasons: (1) On account of the language, 
Hebrew being used in many parts of the Talmud (especially in Hag- 
gadic pieces), Palestinian Aramaic in the Palestinian Talmud, Eastern 



TALMUD 471 

Aramaic in the Babylonian Talmud. The Talmud also contains words 
of Babylonian and Persian origin; (2) for folklore, history, geogra- 
phy, natural and medical science, jurisprudence, archeology, and the 
understanding of the Old Testament. For Christians especially the 
Talmud contains very much which may help the understanding of 
the New Testament, [p. 2905] . . . 

The Palestinian Talmud. — Another name, TalmUdh YerUshalmi 
("Jerusalem Talmud"), is also old, but not accurate. The Palestinian 
Talmud gives the discussions of the Palestinian Amoraim, teaching 
from the third century a. d. until the beginning of the fifth, especially 
in the schools or academies of Tiberias, Caesarea, and Sepphoris. -. . . 

The Bal)ylonian Talmud. — The Babylonian Talmud is later and 
more voluminous than the Palestinian Talmud, and is a higher authority 
for the Jews. — The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited 
ly James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. V, art. " Talmud," pp. 2905, 2906. 

Talmud, The Oeal Law. — Talmud (i. e., doctrine, from the He- 
brew word " to learn " ) is a large collection of writings, containing 
a full account of the civil and religious laws of the Jews. It was a 
fundamental principle of the Pharisees, common to them with all 
orthodox modern Jews, that by the side of the written law, regarded 
as a summary of the principles and general laws of the Hebrew people, 
there was an oral law, to complete and to explain the written law. 
It was an article of faith that in the Pentateuch there was no precept, 
and no regulation, ceremonial, doctrinal, or legal, of which God had 
not given to Moses all explanations necessary for their application, with 
the order to transmit them by word of mouth. The classical passage 
in the Mishna on this subject is the following: "Moses received the 
(oral) law from Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the 
elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of 
the Great Synagogue." This oral law, with the numerous commenta- 
ries upon it, forms the Talmud. It consists of two parts, the Mishna and 
Gamara. 

1. The Mishna, or " second law," which contains a compendium of 
the whole ritual law, was reduced to writing in its present form by 
Rabbi Jehuda the Holy, a Jew of great wealth and influence, who flour- 
ished in the second century of the Christian era. Viewed as a whole, 
the precepts in the Mishna treated men like children, formalizing and 
defining the minutest particulars of ritual observances. The expres- 
sions of " bondage," of " weak and beggarly elements," and of " bur- 
dens too heavy for men to bear," faithfully represent the impression 
produced by their multiplicity. The Mishna is very concisely written, 
and requires notes. 

2. This circumstance led to the commentaries called Gtemara (i. e., 
supplement, completion), which form the second part of the Talmud, 
and which are very commonly meant when the word " Talmud " is 
used by itself. There are two Gemaras: one of Jerusalem, in which 
there is said to be no passage which can be proved to be later than the 
first half of the fourth century; and the other of Babylon, completed 
about 500 A. D. The latter is the more important and by far the longer. 
— "A Dictionary of the Bible," William Smith, LL. D., pp. 672, 673, 
Teacher's edition. Philadelphia: Porter an<l Coates, copyright 1884. 

Tammuz, Worship of. — Adonis, or Tammuz, which was proba- 
bly his true name, was a god especially worshiped at Byblus. He seems 
to have represented nature in its alternate decline and revival, whence 
the myth spoke of his death and restoration to life; the river of 
BybJ'is was regarded as annually reddened with his blood; and once 



472 TARGUM 

a year, at the time of the summer solstice, the women of Phoenicia and 
Syria generally " wept for Tammuz." Extravagant sorrow was fol- 
lowed after an interval by wild rejoicings in honor of his restoration 
to life; and the excitement attendant on these alternations of joy and 
woe led on by almost necessary consequence, with a people of such a 
temperament as the Syrians, to unbridled license and excess. The rites 
of Aphaca, where Adonis had his chief temple, were openly immoral, 
and when they were finally put down, exhibited every species of abomi- 
nation characteristic of the worst forms of heathenism. — " TUe Reli- 
gions of the Ancient World," George RawUnson, M. A., p. 109. New 
York: Hurst d Co. 

Targum. — Targum signifies, in general, any version or explana- 
tion; but this appellation is more particularly restricted to the versions 
or paraphrases of the Old Testament, executed in the East Aramaean 
or Chaldee dialect, as it is usually called. These Targums are termed 
paraphrases or expositions, because they are rather comments and ex- 
plications, than literal translations of the text: they are written in the 
Chaldee tongue, which became familiar to the Jews after the time 
of their captivity in Babylon, and was more known to them than the 
Hebrew itself; so that when the law was " read in the synagogue every 
Sabbath day," in pure Biblical Hebrew, an explanation was subjoined 
to it in Chaldee, in order to render it intelligible to the people, who 
had but an imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew language. This prac- 
tice, as already observed, originated with Ezra: as there are no traces 
of any written Targums prior to those of Onkelos and Jonathan, who 
are supposed to have lived about the time of our Saviour, it is highly 
probable that these paraphrases were at first merely oral; that, sub- 
sequently, the ordinary glosses on the more diflicult passages were com- 
mitted to writing; and that, as the Jews were bound by an ordinance 
of their elders to possess a copy of the law, these glosses were either 
afterward collected together and deficiencies in them supplied, or new 
and connected paraphrases were formed. 

There are at present extant ten paraphrases on different parts of 
the Old Testament, three of which comprise the Pentateuch, or five 
books of Moses: 1. The Targum of Onkelos; 2. That falsely ascribed to 
Jonathan, and usually cited as the Targum of the Pseu do- Jonathan; 
and, 3. The Jerusalem Targum; 4. The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, 
(i. e., the son of Uzziel) on the Prophets; 5. The Targum of Rabbi 
Joseph the blind, or one-eyed, on the Hagiographa; 6. An anonymous 
Targum on the five Megilloth, or books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, 
Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah; 7, 8, 9. Three 
Targums on the book of Esther; and, 10. A Targum or paraphrase on the 
two books of Chronicles. These Targums, taken together, form a con- 
tinued paraphrase on the Old Testament, with the exception of the 
books of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah (anciently reputed to be part 
of Ezra) ; which being for the most part written in Chaldee, it has 
been conjectured that no paraphrases were written on them, as being 
unnecessary, though Dr. Prideaux is of the opinion that Targums were 
composed on these books also, which have perished in the lapse of ages. 
— "An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy 
Scriptures" Thomas Hartwell Home, B. D., Vol. II, Part I, pp. 198, 199. 
London: T. Cadell, 1839. 

Targum. — After the exile, Aramaic became the language of trade 
and commerce in Palestine, and a considerable number of the Jews 
after a time were more familiar with it than with the sacred tongue. 
Hence tbe practice arose of accompanying the reading of the Scrip- 



TARGtJM 473 

tures in the synagogues by an interpretation in the popular Aramaic. 
Nehemiah 8: 8 is often incorrectly adduced in proof of this practice. 
For the Jewish theologians of the Middle Ages were anxious to cite 
Scripture authority for all their arrangements and institutions, even 
for those which came into existence subsequent to the Persian period, 
just as Christian divines have similarly attempted to establish dogmas 
and practices of later development from passages of the New Testament, 
which, rightly understood, have no such meaning. Luke 4: 17 ff. is 
often adduced to prove that the practice of interpreting the Scriptures 
in Aramaic was at least not universal in the time of our Lord. That 
practice may, however, then have been in use in parts of the country, 
and it was firmly established as a general custom before the great 
insurrection in the days of Hadrian. The Aramaic paraphrase some- 
times adhered closely to the original text, but at other times was em- 
bellished with additions of various kinds. The reader of the Law and 
the Prophets in reading was forbidden to add anything to the sacred 
text, or to repeat any text from memory. He was directed when read- 
ing strictly to keep his eyes on the words. The meturgeman, or trans- 
lator, was,' on the other hand, forbidden to make any use whatever of 
manuscript, but was wholly to depend on memory, [pp. 40, 41] . . . 

All "interpretations" — and the word " Targum " (C*;."*;!!) prop- 
erly signifies such — have a tendency, whether more or less literal, in 
the process of time to become uniform. The interpreters among the Jews 
became in time a sort of guild. While, therefore, Bohl has gone too far 
in maintaining that there was in existence in our Lord's time an 
Aramaic translation or paraphrase of the Scriptures, which was cited 
by New Testament writers, it is not improbable that large portions of 
the Scripture in Aramaic were early committed to writing, [p. 42] . . . 

The theology set forth in the Targums proves, as Strack observes, 
their great antiquity. None, however, of the Targums now known are 
of higher antiquity than the third or fourth century after Christ. But 
they are based to a large extent upon similar works of a much higher 
antiquity. 

The extant Targums are: 

1. The Targum of Onkelos (Cl^pJIN), which is the most literal, 
and comprehends the entire Pentateuch. It is uncertain who this 
Onkelos was, or at what time he' lived. The Onkelos spoken of in the 
Talmud as contemporary with Gamaliel, and whose translations are 
there mentioned, can be identified with Aquila ( nb^pl? ) , the Greek 
translator. Geiger is probably correct in maintaining that the Tar- 
gum which adhered most literally to the Hebrew text was called that 
of Onkelos, not because it was edited by him, but as indicating that 
it was executed with something like the same literality for whicTi 
Aquila's Greek version was remarkable. The name describes the 
nature of the work, and not the author. The Targum of Onkelos does 
not appear to have been the work of a single author or editor, but the 
production of a school. In its present shape it probably Originated in 
Babylon, and it has often been questioned whether that Targum is as 
early as the older portions of the two Targums next to be mentioned. 

2. The Targum of Jerusalem, I, embraces the Pentateuch, and is 
commonly known as the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, owing to the fact 
that it was incorrectly ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, the pupil of 
Hillel. ... In its present form it is probably not older than the 
seventh century. 

3. The Targum of Jerusalem, II, also termed the Fragmentary 
Targum, embraces only portions of the Pentateuch. It is older than the 



474 TARGlTM 

former, and probably a production of the Palestinian school. It con- 
tains more of an Haggadic, i. e., homiletic nature. This Targum is 
often cited in the Jerusalem Talmud and in the Midrash Rabba. 

4. The Targum of Jonathan embraces the Prophets. This para- 
phrase is generally ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, who, according to 
the Babylonian Talmud (MegillaJi, ZaJ, composed a Targum on the 
Prophets. Passages, however, of this Targum are ascribed in the Tal- 
mud to a later scholar, R. Joseph bar Chiyyah (died 333), who may 
have revised and re-edited the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel. . . . 
It is likely that this Targum also was the product of a school of inter- 
preters, and not the work of any single author. 

5. The Targums on the Hagiographa were composed by different 
authors, and are more modern. The authors of those paraphrases prob- 
ably worked also on the lines of former translators. No Targum is ex- 
tant on the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, while there are two 
Targums on the book of Esther. According to Noldeke, the Targum 
on the Proverbs is a Jewish working-up of the Syriac (Peshitto) trans- 
lation. The same might also be affirmed of the Targum on the Psalms, 
which, from its allusions in the rendering of Psalm 108: 11 to Rome 
and Constantinople as the two capitals of the world, has been con- 
sidered to have been composed prior to a. d. 476; while, on the other 
hand, the references to the Hungarians in Psalm 83: 7 point to the 
ninth century. Such phenomena seem to show that the translation of 
the Psalms was the work of very different periods. 

6. Besides the above, a few fragments are extant of other Targums 
on the Prophets, which need here only be alluded to. — " An Introduction 
to the Old Testament,'' Rev. Charles H. H. Wright, D. D., Ph. D., pp. 
JfO-^5. Neto York: Thomas Whittaker. 

Targum, Use of. — As an interpretation of the Hebrew text of the 
Bible, the Targum had its place both in the synagogal liturgy and in 
Biblical instruction; while the reading of the Bible text combined with 
the Targum in the presence of the congregation assembled for public 
worship, was an ancient institution which dated from the time of the 
second temple. — The Jetvish Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. " Targum," 
p. 57. 

% 

Temple, Time of Building of. — Note that the number is ordinal 
(not cardinal) = the 480th year of some longer and larger period, viz., 
the 490 years from the exodus to the dedication of the temple; the 
difference of ten years being made up of seven years in building (1 
Kings 6: 38) and three years in furnishing. Dedicated not in seventh 
year, for completion took place in the eighth month of one year (v. 38), 
and the dedication in the seventh month of another (8: 2). The chron- 
ological period was 40 years in wilderness -f- 450 years under judges -|- 
40 years of Saul -f- 40 years of David -f 3 years of Solomon (v. 1) = 
573 (from 1490-917). The mystical period of 480 years is obtained by 
deducting the period of 93 years, when Israel's national position was 
in abeyance. Thus: 8 (Judges 3: 8) + 18 (Judges 3: 14) -f 20 (Judges 
4: 3) + 7 (Judges 6: 1) + 40 (Judges 13: 1) = 93. (N. B. — The 
eighteen years of Judges 10: 7, 9, was local and beyond Jordan. It did 
not affect the national position.) Hence 573 — 93 =: 480 (from 873- 
93). — ''The Companion Bible," Part II, ''Joshua to Job," p. 456. 
London: Oxford University Press. 

Temiple of Solomon, Site of. — ^It is proved, I think, without doubt, 
that the " Dome of the Rock," or the Mosque of Omar, covers the true 
site of Solomon's temple. Able men have written exhaustive books to 



TEMPliE, SITE OF 475 

endeavor to prove that the site was elsewhere; for instance, as to the 
site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. But most of these books were 
written before the excavation works of Sir Charles Warren, though it 
is true of the late Mr. Fergusson, that he held his views to the last. 
No evidence contrary to his opinion had any effect upon him; but surely 
the stubborn belief of an able man, formed, be it remembered, before 
the spade and pick revealed so much of old Jerusalem, cannot outweigh 
facts. So we must take it for proved that this " Dome of the Rock " 
and the " Haram " inclosure really cover the site of Solomon's temple. 
" The plateau is about 1,500 feet from north to south, 900 feet from east 
to west, sustained by a massive wall rising on the exterior from 50 to 
80 feet above the present level of the ground. The general level of this 
plateau is about 2,420 feet; but toward the east at the Golden Gate, it 
is not filled up to this level by some twenty feet or so." 

" Almost in the center of this plateau is an irregular four-sided 
paved platform, rising some sixteen feet above the general level of the 
plateau, and above the center of this platform the sacred rock crops out, 
over which is built the celebrated Dome of the Rock. There is no ques- 
tion but that within the present noble sanctuary the temple of Herod 
once stood, and that some part of the remaining wall is on the site of, 
or actually is, a portion of the old wall of the outer court." 

It is proved that the Holy City is built upon a series of rocky spurs, 
and that in early days the site of Jerusalem was a series of rocky 
slopes; therefore, when we get to the rock, we see it just as it was 
before the city was built. The rock levels examined by means of shafts 
and tunnels show that the ridge of rock at the northeast angle is 162 
feet below the sacred rock; at the northwest angle, 150 feet below this 
same rock; southwest angle, 163 feet. The temple was not placed in a 
hole; it was to be a conspicuous building — the building, in short, of 
Jerusalem. So it must have stood on this platform which was raised 
by means of walls, arches, the spaces being used as storerooms, secret 
passages, underground cisterns to hold water, to store both the spring 
water and the rain water — one cistern so large that it is called the 
" underground sea." This platform was raised and carried across to the 
highest point of rock, which, remember, was the threshing floor of 
Araunah, the Jebusite, by which " floor " the angel's foot had stayed. 

The lower ridge of rock having been selected, black mould was cut 
away at an angle. In this black mould no stone chippings were found, 
but fragments of potsherds. The mould varied in depth from two feet 
to eight or ten feet. The rock in which the foundation stones stand 
is found to be very soft. This rock was cut through to the extent of 
two feet, to insure that the prepared stone had a secure position. . All 
these details have been proved by the shafts dug by Sir Charles Warren 
— shafts which varied in depth from 85 to 120 feet. It is curious to 
notice that at the southeast angle a hole was found cut in the natural 
rock. This hole was only one foot across and one foot deep. In the 
hole a little earthenware jar was found standing upright. For what 
purpose it was so placed, who can tell? It may have contained the oil 
to consecrate the corner-stone, or it may only have been a quaint fancy 
of some Phoenician workman. Anyhow, it was discovered after an in- 
terval of 3,000 years. Now we note the Bible passage, " that no tool was 
heard " during the erection of the house of God. The absence of stone 
chippings proves that this statement is true. Any one who has watched 
the erection of a house will have noticed the constant clang of the iron 
tools, and the heaps of brick or stone debris lying close to the founda- 
tion. But where was the stone prepared? 

Comg with mp to the Cotton Grotto, which is the morlern name of 



476 TEMPLE, SITE OF 

the old quarry. The entrance till lately was near the Damascus Gate, 
over a rubbish heap; and some feet below the level of the ground you 
found the opening to the quarry. This opening was accidentally dis- 
covered in 1852. The entrance was so small, owing to the rubbish, that 
it could only be entered by stooping and letting yourself drop down- 
ward to the floor. First came a rough floor of earth, and then stones. 
Quite in the heart of the quarry was found a rude basin or cistern, 
partly full of water. Huge stones lie scattered about — stones cut thou- 
sands of years ago. Masons' marks abound. From them you can tell 
the size and shape of the tools these old workers used. The marks are 
quite fresh, and remind you of those quarries at Assouan, in Egypt. 
You quite fancy it must be the dinner hour, and that the workmen will 
return erelong. Some stones still remain which are only partially cut 
away. From the mass of stone chippings it is quite plain that the stones 
were " dressed " here. The absence of stone chips near the foundation 
stones — the black earth being quite free of them — and their presence 
here, prove to the very hilt the truth of the Bible statemnt. 

And then the red marks! These mysterious letters and marks in 
red paint sorely puzzled the explorers in the tunnels they drove along 
the foundation wall. These red marks are Phcenician lettering and 
numerals — instructions, in short, from the master builder to the work- 
men where to lay each stone; and we can fancy Hiram, the great master 
mason of the Phoenicians, standing on this black earth and seeing that 
his Sidonian workmen and the subject races of Canaan placed each 
stone in due order according to his plan. 

Here, again, we have a most wonderful, unlooked-for confirmation 
of the Bible statement. The Bible says that Phoenician builders built 
the temple. We find, after digging shafts from 85 to 120 feet, that red 
marks of Phoenician meaning are on the foundation stone. Then that 
" no tool was heard," and no chips are found. And who that has seen 
— or, if not seen, realized from description — the size of the stones, 
the great foundation stone at the southeast angle, will not say that the 
words " costly stones " is but a true and apt description, and that the 
words " great stones " is no exaggeration? When we recollect that 
stones estimated to weigh 100 tons are in the foundation wall, that in 
length they can be found 38 feet 9 inches, as in the southeast angle, 
surely we must admit that the account is but sober truth. 

The inquiry may have arisen. Why this great wall? this expenditure 
of stone, labor, skill? There is one factor we must not overlook. The 
temple was to be erected over the threshing floor of Araunah. This is 
imperative; that was a sacred spot, because the angel had stayed his foot 
there; that must be left. But Eastern threshing floors are always, and 
were always, at the highest points of the ridge, and so the problem is 
complicated. They cannot cut down the highest point, and so obtain 
a large area for the proposed temple. That is impossible; all that re- 
mains is to leave the sacred threshing floor intact, and by building this 
huge wall, arches, and other supports, so get an enlarged area, big 
enough for the temple and the temple courts. In this way they solved 
the problem. We can even see how they did it — those Phoenician 
builders. 

And what do we see now on entering the " Dome of the Rock "? I 
do not propose to describe the richness and beauty of the interior — 
only the one object for which this mosque was erected; and that is a 
hnge mass of rock untouched, or nearly so, by chisel. Here, undoubt- 
edly, was the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite — a threshing 
floor probably long before, for the word " Jebusite " is said to mean 
"threshing-floor people." From Zion David could look down on this 



TIGLATH-PILESAR 477 

ridge. And it has other memories too, for was not this " Moriah," that 
hill on which Abraham offered Isaac? So this unshaped mass of rock 
has very special sanctity. — " The Bidle and Modern Discoveries," Henry 
A. Harper, pp. 277-282, 4th edition. London: Alexander P. Watt, 1891. 

Tiglath-Pileser, Por, Pul. — With Rimmon-nirari the power of the 
older dynasty of the Assyrian kings came to an end. His successors 
were scarcely able to defend themselves against the attacks of their 
neighbors on the north and south; diseases and insurrections broke out 
in the great cities of the kingdom, and finally, in b. c. 746, there was a 
rising in Calah; the king either died or was put to death, and before 
the year was over, in the month of April, b. c. 745, the crown was 
seized by a military adventurer, named Pul, who assumed the title of 
Tiglath-Pileser II. Tiglath-Pileser I had been the most famous mon- 
arch and most extensive conqueror of the older dynasty, and had 
reigned over Assyria five centuries previously; by assuming his name, 
therefore, the usurper wished to show that he intended to emulate 
his deeds [p. 101] . . . 

Two years after his accession (b. c. 743), Tiglath-Pileser II turned 
his attention to the west. Arpad, now Tel-Erfad, near Aleppo, was the 
first object of attack. It held out for three years, and did not fall until 
b. c. 740. But, meanwhile, the kingdom of Hamath had been shattered 
by the Assyrian arms. Nineteen of its districts were placed under 
Assyrian governors, and the Assyrian forces made their way as far 
as the Mediterranean Sea. Azri-yahu, or Azariah (Uzziah), the Jewish 
king, had been the ally of Hamath, and from him also punishment was 
accordingly exacted. He was compelled to purchase peace by the offer 
of submission and the payment of tribute. The alliance between Judah 
and Hamath had been of long standing. David had been the friend of 
its king Tou, or Toi; and at the beginning of Sargon's reign the king 
of Hamath bears a distinctively Jewish name. This is Yahu-bihdi, or, 
as it is elsewhere written, Ilu-bihdi, where the word ilu, " god," takes 
the place of the name of the covenant God of Israel. It is even possible 
that Yahu-bihdi was a Jew who had been placed on the throne of Hamath 
by Azariah. At any rate, the alliance between Judah and Hamath ex- 
plains a passage in 2 Kings 14: 28, which has long presented a difficulty. 
It is now clear that Jeroboam is here stated to have won over Hamath 
to Israel, though previously it had " been allied with Judah." But 
after Jeroboam's death, Jewish influence must once more have gained 
an ascendancy among the Hamathites. 

Two years after the fall of Arpad, Tiglath-Pileser was again in the 
west. On this occasion he held a levee of subject princes, among whom 
Rezon of Damascus and Menahem of Samaria came to offer their gifts 
and do homage to their sovereign lord. The tribute which Tiglath- 
Pileser states that he then received from the Israelitish king was given, 
according to the book of Kings, to Pul. We may infer from this, there- 
fore, that the Assyrian monarch was still known to the neighboring 
nations by his original name, and that it was not until later that they 
became accustomed to the new title he had assumed. The inference is 
further borne out by the statement of an ancient Greek astronomer, 
Ptolemy. When speaking of the eclipses which were observed at 
Babylon, Ptolemy gives a list of Babylonian kings, with the length of 
their reigns, from the so-called era of Nabonassar in b. c. 747, down to 
the time of Alexander the Great. In this list, Tiglath-Pileser, after 
his conquest of Babylon, is named Poros or Por, Por being the Persian 
form of Pul. — "Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments," A. H. 
Sayce, M. A., pp. 101-104. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. 



478 TRANSUBSTANTIATION 

Transubstantiation, Decree of. — And because tbat Christ our Re- 
deemer declared that which he offered under the species of bread to be 
truly his own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the 
church of God, and this holy synod doth now declare it anew, that by 
the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of 
the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of 
Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the sub- 
stance of his blood; which conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church 
suitably and properly called transubstantiation. — " Dogmatic Canons 
and Decrees," p. 74. New York: The Devin- Adair Company, 1912. 

Transubstantiation, Canons Concerning. — Canon I. If any one 
denieth that, in the sacrament of the most holy eucharist, are contained 
truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the 
soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole 
Christ; but saith that he is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or 
virtue; let him be anathema. 

Canon II. If any one saith that, in the sacred and holy sacrament 
of the eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains con- 
jointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth 
that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the 
bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the 
blood — the species only of the bread and wine remaining — which con- 
version indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation; 
let him be anathema. 

Canon III. If any one denieth that, in the venerable sacrament of 
the eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and 
under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema. 

Canon IV. If any one saith that, after the consecration is completed, 
the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable 
sacrament of the eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst 
it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, 
or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after com- 
munion, the true body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema. 
— Id., pp. 81, 82. 

Transubstantiation, Roman Catholic Teaching Concerning. — 

20. How does our Lord become present in the eucharist? 

Our Lord becomes present in the eucharist by transubstantiation; 
i. e., by the changing of the whole substance of the bread into the body 
of Jesus Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into his blood. 

21. Is it then true that after consecration there is neither bread nor 
wine on the altar? 

Yes; after consecration nothing remains but the body and blood of 
Christ. 

22. What remains of the bread and the wine after consecration? 

After consecration nothing remains of them but the species or ap- 
pearances. The substance of the bread and the substance of the wine 
have been changed into the substance of the body of Jesus Christ and 
the substance of his blood. 

23. Are the substance of the bread and the substance of the wine 
annihilated when the host is consecrated? 

No, but they are changed into the true body and the true blood of 
Jesus Christ. If they were annihilated, there would be no change. Now, 
the church expressly teaches that there is a change. 

24. Is Jesus Christ, whole and entire, present in the eucharist? 

Yes, Jesus Christ, whole and entire, is present under the appear- 
ance of bread, as he is also whole and entire under the appearance 
ojf wine. 



TnANStrBSTANTIATION 479 

26. Is Jesus Christ contained whole and entire under each particle 
of the species of bread and wine, when these species have been divided? 

It is of faith that, if the sacred species be divided into several parts, 
no matter how great their number, Christ is present, whole and entire, 
in each particle of the host and in each drop of the precious blood. 

28. Do the eucharistic species retain their natural properties? 
The sacred species have the same properties as their substance had 

before transubstantiation. In other words, they are sensible, divisible, 
nutritive, corruptible, and, in a word, susceptible of all those changes 
of quality which bread and wine undergo. 

29. When do the species cease to be sacramental? 

They cease to be sacramental species when they have become so 
altered that, if their substances did exist, these substances would no 
longer be bread and wine. 

30. What then occurs? 

Christ withdraws from the sacrament, and the species return to the 
ordinary course of nature's laws. 

33. What worship ought we to pay to Jesus in the tabernacle? 

It is of faith, as defined by the Council of Trent, that Jesus in the 
tabernacle should be adored with a worship of latria [" that which is 
given to God alone"]. 

34. Should we adore nothing but Christ present under the species? 
We should adore the entire sacrament, which contains both our 

Lord and the consecrated species. — " Manual of Christian Doctrine,'* ty 
a seminary professor (R. C), pp. 419-422. Philadelphia: John Joseph 
McYey, 1914. 

Transubstantiation, Father of the Doctrine of. — The doctrine of 
the real presence in the Lord's Supper, as enunciated by Pope Innocent 
III, was dogmatically propounded and proclaimed for the first time in 
the history of Christianity in the year 831, as far as anj^ existing rec- 
ords show, by Paschasius Radbertus, a monk of Corbey; and this, be- 
cause he became the first pronounced apologist and exponent of an in- 
terpretation of the Lord's Supper which already existed in the minds 
of many Christian believers, makes him virtually the father of the 
doctrine of transubstantiation. — *' Modernism and the Reformation," 
John Benjamin Rust, Ph. D., D. D., p. 102. New York: Fleming H. 
Revell Company. 

Transubstantiation, First Mention of. — Up to the time of Walaf ri- 
dus Strabo (who wrote about a. d. 840), no change of substance was 
admitted in the eucharist. For he writes plainly: " Christ delivered his 
body and blood to the disciples in the substance of bread and wine.'' 
The very first writer (it is believed) who used the barbarous term 
adopted at Trent was Stephanus Eduensis, who flourished a. d. 950, and 
paraphrased the words of our Lord — " Panem quem accept in corpus 
meum transubstantiavi [The bread which I have taken I have changed 
Into my body]." — "Romanism: A Doctrinal and Historical Examination 
of the Creed of Pope Pius IV," Rev. Robert Charles Jenkins, M. A., p. 
146. London: The Religious Tract Society. 

Transubstantiation, A Late Doctrine. — The doctrine of the change 
of elements in the Lord's Supper, as it was determined in opposition 
to Berengarius, was by no means universally received in the twelfth 
century. ... It received, under Innocent III, its first confirmation by a 
general council; nevertheless reason long pulled at this new chain; and 
thus even after this confirmation a manifold controversy rose up on this 
point. The higher view of this sacrament caused many alterations in 



480 TRANSUBSTANTIATION 

the celebration. In order to remove all danger of profanation, the 
communion of children was discontinued. In the administration of the 
cup more anxious solicitude was shown to provide against spilling, and 
in the twelfth century the custom began in different places of with- 
holding it altogether from the laity. However, this withholding of the 
cup, although it was much extended, especially after the time of Thomas 
and Bonaventura, was not yet in this period of time a universal custom 
in the church. Further, it was the practice in the thirteenth century to 
adore the presence of Christ in the consecrated elements; and Urban 
IV even appointed in the year 1264, that a festival which had risen up 
in the diocese of Liege, dedicated solely to the honor of the consecrated 
host (the festum corporis Domini [the feast of the Lord's body]) should 
be observed by the whole church. After the death of this Pope the new 
festival was discontinued; but afterward in the year 1311, it was 
established forever in the church by Clement V. 

Since, down to this time, the conception of a sacrament had been 
very fluctuating, a more positive definition of the word and the enu- 
meration of seven sacraments, was introduced by Hugo de St. Victor, 
and ratified by Peter Lombard, and generally established; although at 
first a significant distinction was recognized among them, with regard 
to their institution as well as their importance. Thomas Aquinas 
brought the sacramental system of the church to its consummation. — 
" A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History," Dr. John G. L, Gieseler, Vol. 
Ill, pp. 31S-329. Edinburgh: T^ & T. Clark, 1853. 

Transubstantiation, In Medieval Times. — The doctrine of tran- 
substantiation in which it was believed that the miracle of the incarna- 
tion was continually repeated and through which the dignity of the 
priesthood by whom the miracle was performed reached its culmina- 
tion, was so much the center of the medieval religious system that it 
was the least doubted of any point. Aquinas endeavored to prove its 
necessity; either Christ must be present by a change of place, or since 
this is not admissible, by transubstantiation. Only thus we can con- 
ceive of a real presence of Christ, and Since the host is adored, without 
transubstantiation adoration would be paid to a created thing. We do 
not find the necessity of this doctrine so absolutely maintained by 
Duns Scotus. In his judgment the language of the Bible might be 
understood to mean something else than transubstantiation. For this 
meaning he gives no other reason than the decision of the church as 
illuminated by the Holy Spirit, by which we must abide. — " Lectures 
on the History of Christian Dogmas," Dr. Augustus Neander, translated 
hy J. E. Ryland, M. A., Vol. II, p. 591. London: George Bell and Sons, 
1882. 

Transubstantiation, Dogma of, Established in 1215. — Before the 
Lateran Council [of 1215] transubstantiation was not a dogma of faith. 

— John Duns Scotus (R. C), quoted "by Bellarmine in his treatise, " On 
the Sacrament of the Eucharist," book 3, chap. £3. 

Transubstantiation, Catechism of Trent on. — There are three 
things most deserving of admiration and veneration, which the Catholic 
faith unhesitatingly believes and confesses to be accomplished in this 
sacrament by the words of consecration. The first is, that the true body 
of Christ the Lord, the very same that was born of the Virgin, and sits 
at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in this sacra- 
ment; the second, that, however alien to, and remote from, the senses 
it may seem, no substance of the elements remains therein; the third, 
which is an easy inference from the two preceding, although the words 
of consecration express it principally, that the accidents which are dis- 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION - 4S1 

cerned by the eyes, or perceived by the other senses, exist in a wonderful 
and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and 
wine we indeed may see; they, however, inhere in no substance, but 
exist by themselves; whereas, the substance of the bread and wine is 
so changed into the very body and blood of the Lord, that the substance 
of bread and wine altogether ceases to exist. — " Catechism of the Coun- 
cil of Trent," translated hy J. Donovan, D. D. (R. C), p. 200. Dublin: 
James Duffy, Sons d Co. 

Note. — This is the only authoritative catechism issued by direction of a 
Roman council. — Eds. 

Let pastors . . . first of all, teach them [" the faithful "] that the 
mind and understanding must, as much as possible, be withdrawn from 
the dominion of the senses; for, were the faithful to persuade them- 
selves that in this sacrament is contained nothing but what they per- 
ceive by the senses, they must be led into the greatest impiety, when, 
discerning by the sight, the touch, the smell, the taste, nothing else but 
the appearance of bread and wine, they would come to the conclusion 
that in the sacrament there is only bread and wine. Care must, there- 
fore, be taken that the minds of the faithful be withdrawn, as much as 
possible, from the judgment of the senses. — Ibid. 

Transubstantiation, The Evident Meaning of the Woeds, " This is 
My Body." — There is no figure more usual in every language than that 
whereby we give to the sign the name of the thing signified. ... As 
this is an ordinary figure in common speech, so it is peculiarly so in the 
language of Scripture. In the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac 
languages, there are either no words which express to mean, signify, 
or represent, or at least such words are of exceedingly rare occurrence. 
Thus, " The seven kine are [i. e., represent] seven years." Gen. 41: 26. 
" This is [represents] the bread of aflQiction which our fathers ate in 
the land of Egypt" " The ten horns are [signify] ten kings." Dan. 
7: 24. "That rock was [represented] Christ." 1 Cor. 10: 4. We also 
find this idiom running through the Greek language. Thus, " The seven 
stars are [represent] the angels of the seven churches; and the seven 
candlesticks are [represent] the seven churches." Rev. 1: 20. "I am 
the vine, ye are the branches." John 15: 5. Our Lord did not say, 
" Hoc est corpus meum," as he did not speak in the Latin tongue, 
though so much stress has been laid upon this quotation from the 
Vulgate version, as if the original had been in Latin. Now as our Lord 
spoken in the Chaldaic or Chaldaio-Syriac, he spoke according to the 
idiom of that language. And any man speaking in that language would 
say, " This is my body," " This is my blood," when he intended to con- 
vey the meaning that the bread and wine represented the body and 
blood of Christ. — " Delineation of Roman Catholicism," Rev. Charles 
Elliott, D. D., Vol. I, book 2, chap. 4, pp. 241, 242. New York: George 
Lane, 1841. 

Transubstantiation, Adoration of the Host. — Catholics firmly 
hold that in the sacrament of the altar Christ is truly present, and 
indeed in such a way that Almighty God, who was pleased at Cana. 
in Galilee, to convert water into wine, changes the inward substance 
of the consecrated bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. 
We therefore adore the Saviour mysteriously present in the sacrament. 
— " Symbolism," John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C), pp. 235, 236, 5th 
edition. London: Thomas Baker, 1906. 

Transubstantiation, Not Proved by Scripture. — Secondly, he [Sco- 
tus] says that there is not any passage of Scripture so clear that, apart 

31 



482 ULTRAMONTANISM 

from the declaration of the church, it plainly compels one to admit 
transubstantiation. And this is not at all Improbable. For even though 
the scripture which we have cited above seems to us so clear that it 
can compel any man who is not refractory [to believe this doctrine], 
nevertheless it so happens that it can be reasonably doubted, since most 
learned and acute men, such as was Scotus before all, think the con- 
trary. — Bell., " De Sacramento Eucharistiw,'' lih. in. cap. xxiii [Bellar- 
mine (R. C), " On the Sacrament of the Eucharist,'" hook 3, chap. 23'\. 

Ultramontanism. — Ultramontanism, a term used to denote in- 
tegral and active Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head 
the Pope, who, for the greater part of Europe, is a dweller beyond the 
mountains (ultra monies), that is, beyond the Alps. . . . According to 
the definition given in Leichtenberger, '' Encycl. des Sciences Reli- 
gieuses" (ed. 1882): "The character of ultramontanism is manifested 
chiefly in the ardor with which it combats every movement of inde- 
pendence in the national churches, the condemnation which it visits 
upon works written to defend that independence, its denial of the rights 
of the state in matters of government, of ecclesiastical administration 
and ecclesiastical control, the tenacity with which it has prosecuted the 
declaration of the dogma of the Pope's infallibility and with which it 
incessantly advocates the restoration of his temporal power as a neces- 
sary guaranty of his spiritual sovereignty." — The Catholic Encyclopedia, 
Yol. XY, art. " Ultramontanism,'' p. 125. 

Ultramontanism, Tbiumph of. — The old names of " ultramontane," 
and " Galilean," not invented by Protestants, but watchwords of con- 
tending parties in the Roman Church, have almost dropped out of use, 
because the Galilean party has been crushed into insignificance and 
silence, while ultramontanism, swarming over the Alpine barriers which 
long shut it into Italy, has conquered the whole Latin obedience for a 
time. — " Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome'' Richard 
Frederick Littledale, LL. D., D. C. L., p. 198. London: Society for 
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1905. 

Ur of the Chaldees, Location of. — In identifying a city, as Ur, 
there are a number of conditions which should be satisfactorily met. 
First, the city should be in Chaldea, preferably not in Shumer, but in 
Babylonia. Secondly, it should be explained why its location was lost 
sight of in the late pre-Christian centuries. Thirdly, it ought to be 
shown why an Aramaean or Western Semite should have come from that 
city. And fourthly, its name should be 't)r ( IIX ). 

For some time it has been known that there was a town in the 
vicinity of Sippar called Amurru, which is also written with the usual 
ideogram Mar-tu. This can properly be included in lower Mesopotamia 
or Chaldea. 

This city, as far as the writer knows, while apparently a city of 
some prominence in the time of the first dynasty of Babylon, is not men- 
tioned in the subsequent periods. 

As is known, a large proportion of the tablets belonging to this 
period that have been thus far published, come from Sippara and its 
vicinity. In these tablets it has been found that many of the names 
of the contracting parties, witnesses in the contracts, officials, and devo- 
tees in the temple documents, are West Semitic. Ranke, in his " Per- 
sonal Names of the Hammurabi Dynasty," p. 33, shows that these peo- 
ple were called " Children of the West Land." His lists of names, as 
well as those of Poebel, which came from this district, namely, Sippar, 
show that a large percentage of the residents bore West Semitic names. 



URIM AND THUMMIM 483 

TofEteen and others have even asserted that the Amorites of the West 
came from this district. Concerning the way these Western Semites 
came to live in this locality, we can only theorize. But knowing the 
later custom of deporting people, and knowing also the account of Ched- 
orlaomer's campaign, how he carried away Lot and the people of 
Sodom and Gomorrah, we might suggest that they or their ancestors 
had heen carried into exile hy some previous Elamite or Babylonian 
conqueror. 

A parallel to this case can be found in the " Business Documents of 
the Murashti Sons of Nippur." In them, towns called Ashkelon, Gaza, 
Heshbon, Bit-Tabalai are located in the vicinity of Nippur in the fifth 
century b. c. In other words, West Semitic names are introduced for 
the towns occupied by the Jews in captivity. In these tablets also a 
great many Jewish names have been found, the descendants of the 
people whom Nebuchadrezzar placed there in exile. The name of the 
city Barsip above Carchemish of Gudea's time doubtless is the origin 
of the Babylonian Borsippa. 

And finally, having shown that the West Semitic name Mar-tu = 
Amurru= IIN, or 't7r, and that this is the name of the town in the 
vicinity of Sippar, we have the only city name Ur of the time of Abra- 
ham that is known. 

Thus all the requirements that can reasonably be laid down in the 
identification of the city have been satisfied. The city is in Chaldea or 
Babylonia; it thrived at the time that the patriarch lived; its location 
was later lost sight of; it was inhabited by West Semitic people, and 
its name is the same as is written in the Old Testament. — " Amurru, the 
Home of the Northern Semites,'' Albert T. Clay, Ph. D., pp. 172-174. 
Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Company, 1909. 

Urim and Thmniniin, Explanation of. — The Urim and Thummim 
were probably two precious stones which were drawn out as a lot to 
give Jehovah's judgment. " The lot is cast into the lap (Heb., bosom) ; 
but the whole judgment thereof is of the Lord." Prov. 16: 33. Bosom 
here is put for the clothing or covering over it (cp. Ex. 4: 6, 7; Ruth 4: 
16). Chek (bosom = any hollow thing, as of a chariot, 1 Kings 22: 35). 
The Hebrew Urim and Thummim mean " lights " and " perfections." 
Probably these are the plurals of majesty, the singular " light " (being 
put by metonymy for what it brought to light, i. e., guilt), and " perfec- 
tion " (put by metonymy for moral perfection, i. e., innocence). Thus, 
these two placed in the " bag," and one drawn out, would give the 
judicial decision (the name connected with the breastplate (cp. v. 15), 
which would be " of the Lord." Hence the breastplate itself was 
known as "the breastplate of judgment" (v. 15), because by that 
Jehovah's judgment was obtained whenever it was needed. Hence, when 
the land was divided "by lot" (Num. 26: 55, etc.), Eleazar, the high 
priest, must be present (Num. 34: 17, cp. 27: 21; Joshua 17: 4). When 
he would decide it, the lot "came up" (Joshua 18: 11); "came forth" 
(Joshua 19: 1); "came out" (Joshua 19: 17); i. e., "out" or "forth" 
from the bag of the ephod. 

In Ezra 2: 61-63 and Nehemiah 7: 63-65 no judgment could be given 
unless the high priest was present with the breastplate, with its bag, 
with the lots of Urim and Thummim, which gave Jehovah's decision, 
" guilty " or " innocent," " yes " or " no." — " The Companion Bible.'' 
Part I, "The Pentateuch," p. 112. London: Oxford University Press. 

Urim and Thummim, Use of. — After the death of Moses, a dif- 
ferent mode was appointed for consulting the oracle, by the high priest. 



484 VIRGIN MARY 

He put on " the breastplate of judgment," a principal part of the potif- 
ical dress, on which were inscribed the words " Urim " and " Thum- 
mim," signifying " lights and perfections," emblematical of divine il- 
lumination; as the inscription on his miter, "Holiness to the Lord," 
was of sanctification. Ex. 28: 30-37; Lev. 8: 8. Thus prepared, he 
presented himself before the Lord to ask counsel on public matters, 
not in the inner sanctuary, which he presumed not to enter but on the 
great day of national atonement, but without the veil, with his face 
toward the ark of the covenant, inside; and behind him, at some dis- 
tance, without the sanctuary, stood Joshua, the judge, or person who 
wanted the response, which seems to have been given with an audible 
voice from within the veil (Num. 27: 21), as in the case of Joshua 
(6: 6-15) ; of the Israelites during the civil war with Benjamin (Judges 
20: 27, 28); on the appointment of Saul to be king, when he hid him- 
self (1 Sam. 10:22-24); of David (1 Sam. 22:10; 23:2-12; 30:8; 2 
Sam. 5: 23, 24); of Saul (1 Sam. 28: 6). 

This mode of consultation subsisted under the tabernacle erected 
by Moses in the wilderness, and until the building of Solomon's temple, 
after which we find no instances of it. The oracles of the Lord were 
thenceforth delivered by the prophets; as by Ahijah to Jeroboam (1 
Kings 11: 29); by Shemaiah to Rehoboam (1 Kings 12: 22); by Elijah 
to Ahab (1 Kings 17: 1; 21: 17-29); by Michaiah to Ahab and Jehosh- 
aphat (1 Kings 22:7); by Elisha to Jehoshaphat and Jehoram (2 
Kings 3: 11-14); by Isaiah to Hezekiah (2 Kings 19: 6-34; 20: 1-11); by 
Huldah to Josiah (2 Kings 22: 13-20); by Jeremiah to Zedekiah (Jer. 
32: 3-5), etc. 

After the Babylonish captivity, and the last of the prophets, Haggai, 
Zechariah, and Malachi, the oracle ceased; but its revival was foretold 
by Ezra (2: 63); and accomplished by Jesus Christ, who was himself 
the oracle, both under the old and new covenants (Gen. 15: 1, €tc.; 
John 1: 1, etc.). — "A New Analysis of Chronology and Geography,'' 
Rev. Witliam Hales, D. D., Vol. II, pp. MO, Ml. London: C. J. G. & F. 
Rivington, 1830. ._ ,,/.,,,,.,,,.,, ..,,,,,„ .;;, 

! T/r.,1 'jaUlivi"' <ifi^ To'i Jtr<i ^A »i 

Virgin Mary, From Babylon. — The very name by which tlie Ital- 
ians commonly designate the Virgin, is just the translation of one of 
the titles of the Babylonian goddess. As Baal or Belus was the name of 
the great male divinity of Babylon, so the female divinity was called 
Beltis. (Hesychius, Lexicon, p. 188.) This name has been found in 
Nineveh applied to the " mother of the gods " (Vaux's " Nineveh and 
Persepolis," p. 459); and in a speech attributed to Nebuchadnezzar, 
preserved in Eusebii " Prwparatio Evangelii," lib. ix, cap. 41, both titles, 
" Belus and Beltis," are conjoined as the titles of the great Babylonian 
god and goddess. The Greek Belus, as representing the highest title of 
the Babylonian god, was undoubtedly Baal, " The Lord." Beltis, there- 
fore, as the title of the female divinity, was equivalent to " Baalti," 
which in English is " My Lady," in Latin, " Mea Domina,'" and in Ital- 
ian, is corrupted into the well-known "Madonna." — '' The Two Baty- 
lons," Rev. Alexander Hislop, p. 20, note, 7th edition. London.fiiStn'W' 
Partridge & Co. : •'►I r?| 

Virgin Mary, Assumption of. — The doctrine on wliich the festival 
of the Assumption is founded, is this: that the Virgin Mary saw no 
corruption, that in body and in soul she was carried up to heaven, and 
now is invested with all power in heaven and in earth. . .. . This doc- 
trine has now received the stamp of papal infallibility, having been 
embodied in the late blasphemous decree that proclaims the " Immacu- 
late Conception." Now, it is impossible for the priests of Rome to find 



WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 485 

one shred of countenance for such a doctrine in Scripture. But in the 
Babylonian system, the fable was ready made to their hand. There it 
was taught that Bacchus went down to hell, rescued his mother from 
the infernal powers, and carried her with him in triumph to heaven. 
This fable spread wherever the Babylonian system spread; and ac- 
cordingly, at this day, the Chinese celebrate, as they have done from 
time immemorial, a festival in honor of a mother who by her son was 
rescued from the power of death and the grave. — " The Two Babylons,'" 
Rev. Alexander Hislop, pp. 125, 126, 7th edition. London: 8. W. Part- 
ridge & Go. 

Virgin Mary, Assumption of, Not Taught in the Early Church. 
— Neither the New Testament nor the patristic writings tell us any- 
thing about the destiny of the Holy Virgin after the death of Christ. 
Two apocryphal works of the fourth or fifth century — one ascribed to 
St. John, the other to Melito, bishop of Sardis — are the earliest author- 
ities for the tradition about her bodily assumption. It is contained also 
in the pseudo-Dionysius; he and Gregory of Tours brought it into the 
Western Church. But centuries passed before it found any recognition. 
Even the Martyrology of Usuard, used in the Roman Church in the 
ninth century, confined itself to the statement that nothing was known 
of the manner of the holy Virgin's death and the subsequent condition 
of her body. — " The Pope and the Council,''^ Janus (Br. J. J. Ign. von 
Dollinger) (R. C), pp. 34, 35. London: Rivingtons, 1869. 

Westminster Confession. — Section IV. " The authority of the Holy 
Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not 
upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is 
truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, be- 
cause it is the word of God." 

Sec. V. "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the 
church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture; and the 
heavenliness of the matter, the eflBcacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the 
style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to 
give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of 
man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the en- 
tire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evi- 
dence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full per- 
suasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority 
thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by 
and with the word in our hearts." — The Westminster Confession, chap. 
1, sees. 4, 5; quoted in "A History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith,"" 
William A. Curtis, B. D., D. Litt., p. 269. Neto York: Charles Scrthner's 
Sons, 1912. 

Westminster Confession, DocfTBiNE of. — The Westminster Confes- 
sion, then, does for the whole system of Calvinistic doctrine what the 
Canons of Dort did for one doctrine: it marks the maturest and most 
deliberate formulation of the scheme of Biblical revelation as it ap- 
peared to the most cultured and the most devout Puritan minds. It 
was the last great creed utterance of Calvinism, and intellectually and 
theologically it is a worthy child of the Institutes, a stately and noble 
standard for Bible-loving men. While influenced necessarily by Con- 
tinental learning and controversy, it is essentially British, as well by 
heredity as by environment; for not only is it based upon the Thirty- 
nine Articles, modified and supplemented in a definitely Calvinistic 
sense at Lambeth and at Dublin, but it literally incorporates Ussher's 



486 WYCLIFFE 

Irish Articles, accepting their order and titles, and using, often without 
a word of change, whole sentences and paragraphs. To the reader of 
both documents the debt is patent on the surface, and the obligation 
goes down to the very heart of the thought. Ussher could not have 
secured more of his own way had he deserted the king and taken his 
seat in the Jerusalem Chamber. Only Laudian Anglicans could seri- 
ously have dissented from the doctrine laid down. Born on the Thames, 
in the capital of the southern kingdom, the Confession, itself a painful 
reminder to the revelers of the Restoration of the sternness of the Long 
Parliament, soon was discarded by the national church for which it 
was primarily prepared; it found a home and instant welcome in Scot- 
land, to pass out thence into all the world with the strenuous and hardy 
emigrants who planted their faith wherever they sought to make their 
way in life. It still remains, in spite of changing times and altered 
formulae of adherence, the honored symbol of a great group of powerful 
churches throughout the British Empire and the great American Re- 
public, embracing within their membership a large proportion of the 
foremost representatives of the world's highest material, social, edu- 
cational, moral, and religious interests. The English-speaking Pres- 
byterian Churches throughout the world without exception adhere either 
to it or to some comparatively slight modification of it; while its hold, 
direct or indirect, upon Congregationalists and Baptists and others is 
a further tribute to its power both of education and of revival. — "A 
History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith,'' William A. Curtis, B. D., 
D. Litt., pp. 275, 276. Neio York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 1912. 

Wycliffe, " The Morning Stab of the Refoemation." — In England 
the oppressions of the papal see were felt with double force since it 
became openly dependent upon the hostile power of Prance. Govern- 
ment and Parliament, impelled and supported by the general voice of 
the nation, resisted them with resolution and success. But in conse- 
quence of this, the eyes of many were opened to other ecclesiastical 
corruptions, and chiefly the agency of the mendicants, the Pope's most 
zealous officers, was visited with censure from all sides. 

In John Wycliffe, a fellow of Merton College, Oxford, distinguished 
for keen-sightedness and learning, this general opinion was firmly 
based upon his love for his fatherland, and his zeal for true Chris- 
tianity. He was the first to come forward as a bold champion in the 
quarrels of the university with the Begging Friars, a. d. 1360. He de- 
nounced without disguise the corruptions of these orders. When Ed- 
ward III in 1366, with the help of his Parliament, delivered himself from 
the shameful tax paid to the Pope, Wycliffe boldly defended this step 
likewise. As he addressed himself in numerous works in his native 
language to the whole nation, he met with great sympathy among all 
classes, except the monks; this was further strengthened by the fact 
that Geoffrey Chaucer (1400), the father of English poetry, joined in 
the assault upon the mendicants. Wycliffe became professor of di- 
vinity at Oxford in 1372, and in 1375 rector of Lutterworth. And when 
the government endeavored more seriously than ever to withdraw the 
Church of England from under the Pope's arbitrary power, Wycliffe 
was one of the ambassadors who negotiated a convention for this purpose 
with the papal delegates at Bruges in 1374. Under these circumstances 
he had opportunities enough to recognize the corruption of the Papacy, 
as well as the shameful working of monasticism. When he declared 
his convictions with candor, he was accused by the Pope in 1376 of 
nineteen errors in doctrine. Gregory XI instituted an inquiry upon 
him. All danger on this account, however, was warded off from him 



ZOROASTER 487 

by the favor of the secular nobles, especially the Duke of Lancaster, 
who held the regency after Edward's death (1377). 

From the great Papal Schism (1378) Wycliffe derived a fresh call, as 
well as greater freedom, to search out the crimes of the church and 
propose amendment. He summoned the secular powers to avail them- 
selves of this favorable time for the reformation of the church, and sent 
out his disciples through the country (poor priests called Lollards by 
their adversaries), to oppose a genuine apostolical agency to the pre- 
tense of the Begging Friars, and to preach against the anti-Christian 
hierarchy and the abuses in the church. Hitherto he had attacked only 
the ecclesiastical constitution and discipline; now he advanced with 
bolder steps. In 1380 he began to translate the Bible into English, and 
as this undertaking was forthwith assailed as heretical, he maintained 
the people's right to Holy Writ. When he began in the year 1381 to im- 
pugn even the doctrine of transubstantiation, many who were his parti- 
sans up to this point were alarmed, but Wycliffe had already so many 
adherents among the learned, especially in Oxford, that he could not be 
quite put down. William (Courtney distinguished his promotion to the 
archiepiscopal see of Canterbury by condemning a string of Wycliffite 
opinions as heretical, at a council in London (May and June, 1382). 
When the hierarchy contrived to make it generally believed that the 
peasants' rising in 1381 was occasioned by Wycliffe's doctrines, the king 
seemed for some time to be induced thereby to give effect to the ecclesi- 
astical degrees. Wypliffe was obliged to leave Oxford, and withdraw to 
his cure at Lutterworth. However, here he could proceed without oppo- 
sition in his zeal against church abuses. Not long before his death 
(1384) he wrote the Trialogus, in which he drew up the knowledge he had 
attained with regard to the church and theology, as his theological be- 
quest. — "A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History," Dr. John C. L. 
Gieseler, Vol. IV, pp. 242-250. Edinburgh: T. & T. Cark, 1853. 

Zoroaster, Religion of. — Zoroaster, or Zarathrustra, according to 
the native spelling, was, by one account, a Median king who conquered 
Babylon about b. c. 2458. By another, which is more probable, and 
which rests, moreover, on better authority, he was a Bactrian, who, at 
a date not quite so remote, came forward in the broad plain of the 
middle Oxus to instil into the minds of his countrymen the doctrines 
and precepts of a new religion. Claiming divine inspiration, and pro- 
fessing to hold from time to time direct conversation with the Supreme 
Being, he delivered his revelations in a mythical form, and obtained 
their general acceptance as divine by the Bactrian people. His religion 
gradually spread from " happy Bactra," " Bactra of the lofty banner," 
first to the neighboring countries, and then to all the numerous tribes 
of the Iranians, until at last it became the established religion of the 
mighty empire of Persia, which, in the middle of the sixth century 
before our era, established itself on the ruins of the Assyrian and 
Babylonian kingdoms, and shortly afterward overran and subdued the 
ancient monarchy of the Pharaohs. In Persia it maintained its ground, 
despite the shocks of Grecian and Parthian conquest, until Moham- 
medan intolerance drove it out at the point of the sword, and forced 
it to seek a refuge further east, in the peninsula of Hindustan. Here it 
still continues, in Guzerat and in Bombay, the creed of that ingenious 
and intelligent people known to Anglo-Indians — and may we not say 
to Englishmen generally? — as Parsees. — "The Religions of the An- 
cient World" George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 64, 65. New< York: Hurst 
& Co. 



SCRIPTURAL INDEX 



GENESIS 49 430 NUMBERS 

1 215 49:10 ...47,333,426 o-ioiq o«c 

1:1 36,42,211 49:24 213 iq • i I'o iff 

1 : 20, 21, 24 .... 466 50 : 9 167 Jq ! or,^ "or Jf? 

1:28 326 50:19,20 215 n j tsi 459 

1 : 31 460 11 '. ig.24 458 

2 :'2 ^ :*.:.; ; ; : ; '11 exodus i| ; |. 21, 2« ■ ; : ; : sm 

ill ::::.«f:^^^-lil Wl::::::::::^ M'^'-'mE 

2 : 4 to 4 : 16 ... 215 3 : 13 212 iX ' ^^ 213, 216 

2 : 13 401 3 : 14 216 fo • 1 oit 

2:14,15 326 4:6.7 483 20-29 Jn 

3:11 332 4:16 435 5^ : §? • JO 

3 : 15 288, 425 5:1 402 o? • 2« 00 

3:17 460 5:2 215 24-4 16 o?l 

3 : 24 438 5 : 7-19 . 166 24 • 7 1 7 '2^ 1? 

4 : 23 439 6:2-8 288 it'-ik ' ' aU 

7 187 6:3. 212, 214-216, 288 onlVo 428 

7:11-24 65 7:1,2 435 9r : Jif .B 

8 187 12 210 



26:55 483 

8 : 4, 5 65 12 : 2, 39 65 07 • 1 « ??J 

8:5 70 12:6 64 S ! J? Acq ?«! 

10 : 2 396, 39s 12 : 23 36, 41 il"^^ ^^3' 4|4 

10 : 5 88. 283 12 : 29 63 oq Jf 

10 : 10 ... 205 12 : 38 67 oq • 1 fi ' ilt 

10 : 11 357 12 : 40 52 09 • 7 lai Jff 

11:1 32.439 13:4 -. 65 30 1 T ^^^' ^ 

11 : 9 32 13 : 12 36 §| : j- 36 

11:28 5 13:17 181 ^* • i^ 483 

12 to 17 : 1 215 14 : 19 182 

12 : 15 402 14 : 24 64 DEUTERONOMY 

12:16 167 14:27 41 i-i .„ 

14 8, 214, 221, 223 15 369 o * S 1 « 

14 : 1 235 15 : 2 213 2-14 qJc 

14 : 7 316 15 : 11 239 t.^n 316 

14:18,19,29 213 15:16 36 4 1 lo ]^ 

15 288 18:16 235 7 ^ 21 2V 9ii 

15:1 484 20:5 254 10 12 13 15 H 

15:2 213 21:24 222 lO- 17 oVS 

15:6 439 23:16 '..70 11:14 ^14 

17:1 215 28:30-37 484 11 : on 19 

18:19 439 32 249 ir • 6 Ia 

20:7 435 18- 15-19 Aot 

21:22,23 215 19 • 21 Ho 

21 : 30 439 LEVITICUS 21 • 2q \kk ^aZ 

22:18 333.426 1:3 288 27 i 2^ ' .' ! ! ! ! .^^^' M^ 

26 215 4 : 13, 14 125 27 : 15 . . 249 

26 : 5. 439 8:8 484 29-29 Zia 

ilir. :::::::::: IJi n^\.::::::::::'. I :?---'----J 

i?;?9::::::::::Mi Jlill :::::::::-|| 1: ••••••••••••• ^ 

32:28 215 18:21 :288 33 i 29 ::::•••■•• 214 

34:31 331 19 : 15, 36 . 439 

41 150, 402 20 : 2-5 288 

41 : 26 481 23 : 4 64 JOSHUA 

41 : 38, 39 215 23 : 23-25 185 1:3 ^7 

41:43 167 23:24 70,185 3 : 11, 13* ! ! ! ! ! ! .' 213 

42:6 255 23:27 184 3:15 66 

45:5, 7, 8 215 24:20 222 3:16 w 

45 : 9 213 25 : 8-10 313 6 : 6-15 484 

46:29 167 25:9 185 7:6 16.184 

47:17 167 25:10,15.30 ....314 8:14 T 16 

489 



490 



SCRIPTURAL INDEX 



11:2,16 16 

12: 1, 3, 8 16 

17 : 4 483 

18 : 11 483 

18 : 18 16 

19 : 1, 17 483 

24 : 2 5 

24 : 14 249 

24 : 26 210 

JUDGES 

1:8 289 

1 : 26 242 

2 249 

2 : 12, 14 249 

3 : 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 314 

3 : 8, 14 474 

4:3 314,474 

5 : 31 314 

6:1 314,474 

7 : 19 64 

8: 28 314 

9:6 210 

9: 22 314 

10:2, 3, 7 '^^ 314 

10:7,9 -^f. .^474 

11 : 2 289 

11 : 30-40 288 

12 : 7, 9, 11, 14 . . 314 

13 : 1 314, 474 

15 : 20 314 

18 : 30 331 

20 : 26 184 

20 : 27, 28 484 

20 : 28 37 

21 : 25 37 

RUTH 

1:20,21 213 

4 : 14 37 

4 : 16 483 

1 SAMUEL 

2: 10 37 

2 : 27 435 

7:3-6 249 

7:6 184 

9:9 433 

10 : 22-24 484 

10 : 25 37 

15 : 29 213 

22 : 10 484 

23 : 2-12 484 

24 : 16 199 

28 : 6 484 

30 : 8 484 

2 SAMUEL 

2 : 29 16 

4:7 16 

5 : 6-10 289 

5 : 14 199 

5 : 23, 24 484 

7 . 430 

S : 2 348 

8 : 17 456 

11 : 1 65 

12 : 16 184 

15 : 24 456 

23 : 3 439 

24 : 6 242 



1 KINGS 

1 : 35 456 

2 : 12 37 

6 : 1, 38 65 

6 : 38 474 

8 : 1, 2 474 

8:2 65 

10 : 2 372 

10 : 28, 29 242 

11 : 13 37 

11 : 14 249 

11 : 29 484 

12 : 22 484 

14 : 22-24 249 

14 : 25, 26 289 

17 : 1 484 

17: 1, 14, 22, 23. . 341 

18 : 38, 45 341 

20 : 35 31 

21 : 17-29 484 

21 : 27 184 

22 420 

22 : 7 484 

22 : 11 421 

22 : 15, 35 483 

2 KINGS 

1 : 2, 3, 16 23 

1 : 10, 12 341 

2 : 8, 14, 21, 24 . . 341 

3 347 

3:4 372 

3 : 4, 5, 6 348 

3 : 11-14 484 

3 : 20 341 

4 : 1-6, 16, 17, 35, 

41, 43 341 

4 : 23 .452 

5:10,27 341 

6 : 6, 17, 18, 20 . . 341 

7 243 

7:6 242 

10 : 32 358 

13 : 21 341 

14 : 13, 14 289 

14 : 25 ... 16, 357, 437 

14 : 28 477 

15 : 19 22, 357 

15:29 451 

16 : 7-10 22 

17:4 22 

17 : 24-34 457 

18:13 22 

18 : 13-16 289 

19:6-34 484 

19 : 37 22 

20 : 1-11 484 

20 : 20 465 

21 : 16 279 

22 : 13-20 484 

24 : 12 ... 95, 155, 156 

24 : 17 148 

25 : 4 16 

25:8 96 

25 : 27 155, 156 

1 CHRONICLES 

1:5 397 

3:5 198 

3 : 17 201 

3 : 19, 24 203 

11 : 4-7 289 

12: 15 66 

29 : 29 434 



2 CHRONICLES 

12 : 2-12 289 

15 : 2 37 

20 : 3 184 

21 : 16, 17 289 

24 : 15 279 

26 : 22 279 

28 289 

30 : 2 70 

31 : 1 249 

32 : 30 465 

32 : 32 279 

36 : 4 204 

36 : 6, 7, 10, 17-20 . 289 

36 : 22 149 

EZRA 

1:1-4 149 

1:5 38 

2 : 61-63 483 

2 : 63 484 

4:2 22 

4:6 7 

4:6, 7 103 

4 : 8 to 6 : 18 ... 155 
6 : 15 65, 66 

6 : 36 21 

7 21 

7:7-9 21 

8 21 

9 21 

NEHEMIAH 

1:1 21, 66, 70 

1:4 184 

2:1 ... 21, 65, 66, 70 
2:5 38 

6 : 15 65, 66, 70 

7 : 63-65 483 

8:9 185 

9:3 63 

13 : 28 396 

ESTHER 

2 : 16 65, 70, 169 

2 : 18 170 

3:7 . . 65, 66, 70, 170 

4 : 14 38 

5:1 ...170 

6:4 170 

7:7 170 

8:9 66, 70 

8 : 15 170 

10 : 1 283 

JOB 
1:9 38 

14 : 14 173 

PSALMS 

2:8 419 

12 : 6 439 

16 426 

16 : 10 . . 335, 419, 428 

21 424 

22 307, 424, 426 

22 : 7, 8, 16 334 

22 : 18 335, 428 

26 : 6 404 

27 : 1 213 

29 : 2 38 

34 : 20 428 



SCRIPTURAL INDEX 



491 



40 426 

46 : 1 213 

63 : 6 64 

68 : 35 213 

69 : 8 308 

69 : 21 334 

69 : 28 186 

72 429 

72: n 419 

81 : 5 185 

83 : 7 474 

86 : 1 213 

89 426 

90 : 1 287 

90 : 4 64 

95 : ] 0, 1 1 36 

97 : 5 213 

110 : 1 419, 428 

118 426 

118: 22 426 

119 438.439 

119 : 122 438 

1 30 : 6 64 

132: 11 419 

132: 11, 17 428 

135: 13 212 

137:7 40 

rnOVERBS 

6: 13 439 

9:10 38 

10 : 27 239 

16: 33 483 

ECCLESIASTES 

2 : 11 38 

12: 1 213 

12:13,14 39 

SONG OF SOLOMON 

6:1 458 

8:7 39 

ISAIAH 

1 : 13 452 

1:24 213 

6:1 437 

7 420 

7:3 278 

7 : 14 . . 333, 419, 426 

8 : 3, 4 278 

8:6 465 

8:6-8 443 

8:14 334 

8 : 18 278 

9 : 6, 7 419 

11 : 10 333 

11:15 181 

15 23 

19 : 18, 19 239 

20 : 1 22 

23 : 11 71 

29 : 13 249 

32 : 15 214 

35 : 5, 6 334, 426 

38 420 

40 : 3 333 

49 : 7 429 

49:26 213 

50 : 6 ... 307, 334, 428 
53 .. 307,348 

349, 424, 429, 431 
53 : 2, 3, 12 334 



53 : 2-9 427 

53 : 3, 7 429 

53 : 3, 7, 10, 12 ... 419 

53 : 5 39 

53 : 8 335 

53 : 9 335, 428 

53 : 10 429 

57 : 8 249 

57:15 418 

60: 16 213 

61 : 1 419 

63 : 1 214 

66 : 23 452 

JEREMIAH 
1:2 32, 33 

1 : 9, 10 420 

1 : 23 33 

4 : 13, 29 28 

5 : 16 28 

6 : 23 28 

7 : 28 39 

10: 11 212 

14 : 14 420 

15:19 .435 

20 : 5 290 

20 : 7 420 

22 : 30 201 

23 : 5, 6 333 

23 : 21 420 

25:1 ..93,95,155,156 

27 : 6, 7 . 154 

27: 14, 15 420 

28 421 

29 : 9 420 

29 : 29 148 

31 : 31-34 34 

31 : 31-40 431 

32 : 1 95 

32 : 3-5 484 

32 : 39, 40 34 

33 424 

36 : 9 154 

36 : 22 65 

36 : 30 201 

37 : 5, 7, 11 403 

39 : 4 16 

41 : 2 184 

44 : 30 402 

46 : 1 39 

46 : 2 154 

50 420 

50 : 2, 38 248 

50 : 23 239 

50 : 37, 42 28 

51 420 

51 : 3, 27 28 

51 : 17, 47, 52 248 

52 : 6, 7 184 

52:7 16 

LAMENTATIONS 

2 : 11 39 

2:19 64 

EZEKIEL 

1:1 39 

1:2 155 

11 : 19 431 

11 : 19, 20 34 

14:14,20 155 

16 : 3 242 

16 : 10 148 



17 : 15 403 

17 : 22-24 431 

20 : 7 249 

20 : 37 332 

23 : 47 148 

27 : 13 398 

32 : 26 398 

34 424 

37 424 

38 397 

38 : 2, 3 398 

38 : 2, 14, 15 400 

38 : 15 397 

39 397 

39 : 1 398 

39 : 3 397 

40 : 1 185 

45:20 185 

46 : 3 452 

DANIEL 
1:1 148,154,155 

1 : 1, 2, 5, 18 28 

1:1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 

18, 19 148 

1:5, 18 156 

2:1 28, 156 

2:4 to 7 : 28 ... 155 
2:5 148 

2 : 5, 7, 38 149 

2:7 430 

2:22 39 

2:37 149 

3:5 154 

3:6, 21 148 

4 150 

4:8, 9 248 

5 ^ 148, 150 

5:4 248 

5 : 10, 11 29 

5 : 11 154 

5:18,22 199 

5 : 30, 31 154 

6 • 150 

6:1 154 

6:8,9,13 148 

7:1 149 

7:13,14 427 

7:14 419 

7:24 481 

8:1 149 

8:5 217 

8 : 20-22 149 

9 149,430 

9:1 . . 8, 30, 101, 149 

9:2 154 

9:3 184 

9:24 333 

9 : 24, 25 21 

9 : 24-27 419 

9:26 335 

10 to 12 103 

10:1 149 

10:3 184 

11 ...156,237-240,290 

11:2 217 

11 : 5. 7. 8 440 

11:5-19 149 

11 : 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 

25-30 441 

HOSEA 

1:1 437 

1:10 432 



492 



SCRIPTURAL INDEX 



2 : 11 452 

2:23 ....432 

3:5 432 

6:2 432 

9:1,2 .249 

9:7 435 

10 : 8 432 

11:1 432 

12:5 212 

13 : 14 432 

14:9 40 

JOEL 

2 : 13 40 

2 : 28, 29, 32 432 

3 431 

AMOS 

2:4,5 232 

3:7, 8 ......... 420 

4:12 40 

4 : 13 232 

5:8 232 

8:5 452 

9:5 232 

9:11 .431,432 

OBADIAH 
21 40,432 

JONAH 

1 to 4 432 

3:2 40 

3:5-10 184 

MICAH 

2:12.13 432 

3:5 421 

4:8 432 

4:13 213 

5 .430 

5 : 1, 2 432 

5:2 ... 333, 419, 426 
6:2 40 

6 6 •• 214 

7:6 433 

7 : 18-20 41 

NAHUM 

1-7 433 

1:8,9 41 

HABAKKUK 

2:3,4 438 

2:4 41 

ZEPHANIAH 

1:4 41 

2:4-15 41 

3:13 41 

3 : 15 433 

HAGGAI 
1:8 41 

1.19 4oO 

2:6-9 :::... 419.433 

2:7 419.429 

2'7 9 333 

2 : 21-23 433 



ZECHARIAH 

1:7 65, 66, 70 

3:8 433 

4 : 14 213 

5 431 

6:5 213 

6 : 13 433 

7:1 ... 21, 65, 66, 70 

7:3 184 

8:2 41 

8 : 19 184 

8 : 23 433 

9:1-8 420 

9:9 ... 334, 427, 433 

11 431 

11 : 12, 13 ... 428. 483 
12:3,8,10 433 

12 : 10 335, 428 

12 : 12 202 

13 : 1, 7-9 433 

14 : 5 437 

14 : 9, 20 433 

MALACHI 

1 : 11 431, 433 

3 431 

3 : 1 333. 419. 429, 433 
3:8 41 

4 : 1-3. 5 433 

4:5 333 

1 MACCABEES 

1 : 1-3, 16 441 

2 : 1-70 323 

4 : 44-46 152 

9 : 27 152 

11 : 13, 18 441 

14 : 41 152 

2 MACCABEES 

2 : 23 324 

4:21 441 

5:1 441 

8 to 15 324 

16:36 65 

MATTHEW 

1 341 

1 : 1-16 204 

1:6 199 

1 : 11 198 

1 : 13 203 

1 : 15 201 

1:16 199 

1 : 20 200 

1:21 288 

2:1 226,240,333 

2 : 1, 22 226. 227 

2:5.6 432 

2 : 15 432 

3 : 1. 2 334 

3 : 12 433 

3 : 16 341 

5 : 18 72 

5 : 22 458 

5:41 412 

5 : 43 404 

6 : 16 404 

7:6 130 

8 342 

8:9 342 

9 342 

9:31 432 



10 : 17 458 

10 : 25 33 

11:3 430 

11:14 433 

12 342 

12 : 40 432 

14 342 

14 : 1, 3 226 

14 : 3 227 

14 : 25 64 

15 342 

15 : 2 404 

16 : 4 432 

16 : 19 261. 265 

17 341. 342 

17 : 2-5 308 

17 : 12 433 

17 : 21 184 

18 : 18 261 

20:3,5,6,9 63 

20 : 35 433 

21 342 

21 : 1 430 

21 : 4, 5, 44 433 

22 : 16 225 

22 : 23 457 

22 : 41-46 428 

23 : 5, 23 404 

24:15 .. 151,155,370 

25 : 6 53 

25 : 13 64 

25 : 53 308 

26 : 31 433 

26 : 31, 54, 56 431 

26 : 34, 40 64 

26 : 53 308 

26 : 54, 63, 64 430 

26 : 64 309 

26 : 67 334 

27 341 

27 : 9 433 

27 : 24 404 

27 : 26 334 

27 : 32 412 

27:33,34 335 

27:37 ....... 42,240 

27 : 41-43 334 

27 : 54 . . 309 

27 : 57, 58, 60 335 

27 : 62 67, 304 

28 341 

28 : 1 304 

MARK 

1 . 342 

1:2 433 

3:6 225 

3 : 22 33 

6 : 14 227 

6 : 14, 17 226 

7 342 

7 : 3, 4 404 

9:7 308 

9: 13 433 

10 : 45 42 

12 : 13 225 

13 : 9 458 

13 : 12 433 

13 : 14 151 

13 : 35 64 

14 : 27 433 

14 : 30, 37 64 

15 : 21 412 

15:25 . .... 62 

15:42 .......... 67 



SOBIPTURALi INDEX 



493 



15 : 44 146 

ae 341 

16 : 2, 9 304 

16 : 14 36 

LUKE 

1 341 

1:5 226, 227 

1 : 17 433 

1 : 27 . . . . ' 200 

1 : 32 199, 204 

1 : 33 240, 432 

1 : 76, 78 433 

2 341 

2:1-5 391 

2:4 200, 433 

2 : 32 309 

2:37 ..^,,..fYv?-^ 184 
3:1,19 ...!:... 226 

3 : 1, 19, 20 227 

3:23 ...199,200,204 

,3:23-38 ; 204 

3 : 24, 26 201 

S : 27 433 

3 : 31 198 

4 : 17 473 

'5 342 

,7:27 433 

9 : 7 226 

9 : 35 308 

9 : 51-54 ; . 458 

10 : 31-33 404 

11 : 15, 18, 19 33 

11 : 30 432 

12 : 38 64 

13 : 6 302 

13:31 226 

16 : 17 72 

18: 12 184, 404 

18 : 38 31 

19 : 9 31, 199 

19:10 42 

19 : 41, 42 39 

19 : 43, 44 290 

21 : 20-24 290 

21 : 24 432 

22 342 

22 : 34, 59 64 

22 : 51 309 

23 : 7 226 

23 : 11 227 

23 : 30 432 

23 : 54 67, 303 

23 : 56 304 

24 341 

24 : 1 304 

24 : 21, 26, 27, 44-46 309 

24 : 25, 44 421 

24 : 25, 26, 45, 46 . 430 

24 : 27, 44 72 

24:44 38,421 

24 : 47 432 

JOHN 

1 441 

1:1 42,484 

1:11 334 

1 : 20, 27, 30, 41 . . 429 

1 : 49 240, 433 

2:6 404 

2 : 13 302, 303 

4:9 458 

4 : 12 285 

4 : 20 457 



4 : 24 216 

4 : 25, 26 430 

5 342 

5:1 302 

5:1, 7, 8 303 

5 : 17 336 

5 : 39-47 430 

6:4 302 

6 : 50 to 8 : 52 . . . 53 

6 : 56 [55] 455 

7:5 308 

7 : 17 429 

7 : 42 ... ... 432 

7:49 .405 

9 342 

10 342 

10 : 16 433 

10: 35 72 

11 : 9 62 

12 : 12-16 430 

12 : 14-16 433 

12 : 37, 38, 41 334 

13 : 1 302 

13: 18 444 

13 : 38 64 

15 : 5 481 

16: 12, 13 453 

16 : 17, 29 72 

18 : 4 341 

19 : 5 240 

19 : 23, 24 335 

19 : 31, 42 304 

19 : 34 146, 335 

19 : 37 433 

19 : 42 67 

20 341, 342 

20 : 1 304 

20 : 28 309 

20 : 31 42 

21 342 

ACTS 

1:8 42 

2 467 

2 : 15 63 

2 : 17 432 

2 : 29-31 335 

2:30 199,370 

3 467 

3:1 63 

3 : 18 430 

3 : 22 426 

4 467 

5:37 110 

6 : 1, 2, 7, 8 467 

7 : 27 426 

7 : 42 40 

8 : 47, 48 433 

10 : 9, 30 63 

10 : 30 184 

10 : 38 42 

10 : 41 304 

10 : 43 430 

12 227 

12 : 1 240 

12 : 1-23 226 

12:12 42 

13 : 3 184 

13 : 23 199 

13 : 31 304 

14 : 23 184 

15 96 

15 : 16 432 

15 : 29 453 

16 96 



18 : 11, 12 96 

23 : 8 457 

23 : 23 64 

24 : 14 227 

24 : 24 226 

24 : 27 96 

25 : 13 226, 227 

25 : 13, 23 ... 228 

26 228 

26 : 1 227 

26 : 5 404 

26:6 .421 

26 : 22, 27 430 

26 : 30 228 

ROMANS 

1:3 199, 333 

1 : 17 43 

5:8 147 

7 : 26 432 

8:3 257 

8 : 20 460 

8 : 34 328 

9 : 25 432 

10: 13 432 

16 : 23 45 

1 CORINTHIANS 
1:14 45 

1 : 23 147, 148 

2 : 7, 8 43 

3:9 326 

3 : 21 43 

7:5 184 

10 : 4 481 

15 : 3, 4 430 

15 : 4, 55 432 

2 CORINTHIANS 

1:3,4 43 

1 : 20 430 

2:4 43 

4 : 13 to 12 : 6 . . 53 
7 : 6, 7 43 

11:3 16 

GALATIANS 

1 : 18 96 

2:1 96 

2:9 45 

3:11 43,433 

3 : 13 145, 148 

3 : 16 333 

4:4 333 

EPHESIANS 

1:3 43 

1:9 454 

1 : 20 328 

3:3, 9 454 

5 : 32 454 

6 : 10-18 37 

PHILIPPIANS 

1:13 121 

1 : 21 44 

2 : 5-11 433 

2 : 7, 8 147 

2:9-11 34 

3:7, 14 44 

4:4 44 



494 



SCRIPTURAL INDEX 



COLOSSIANS 

1 : 16 287 

2:8 16 

2 : 10 44 

3:1 328 

1 THESSALONIANS 

1 : 10 44 

2 THESSALONIANS 

2:4 267 

2 : 4, 6-9 10 

2:7 9 

2:8 10 

3:5 44 

1 TIMOTHY 

3:9 44 

3 : 16 454 

6 : 20, 21 16 

2 TIMOTHY 

1 : 13 44 

2 : 19 433 

TITUS 

1:7 326 

2 : 11-14 44 

3:4-9 : . 44 

PHILEMON 
17 44 



HEBREWS 
1:3 ... 287, 328, 336 

2 : 14 257 

2 : 14, 16 333 

4:1 36 

6 : 20 433 

7 : 14 333 

8:1 328 

9 34 

9 : 14-28 54 

9 : 24-28 287 

10 34 

10 : 12 328 

10 : 37 433 

11 : 32 289 

11 : 37 279 

11 : 40 45 

12 : 2 ... 147, 307, 328 
12 : 26 433 

12 : 28 34 

13 : 8 287 

JAMES 

2 : 26 45 

5 : 15 455 

1 PETER 

1 : 11, 12 421 

2:7 45 

2: 10 432 

3 : 22 328 

2 PETER 

1 : 16, 19-21 432 

1 : 21 17, 421 

2:5 435 



1 JOHN 

1:4 46 

5 : 13 45 

2 JOHN 

6 45 

3 JOHN 

8 45 

JUDE 

21, 24 45 

REVELATION 

1 56 

1:1 46 

1:5 433 

1:7 433 

1:8 287 

1 : 20 454, 481 

2 : 13 251 

3:3 64 

5 : 13 34 

8 : 3, 4 433 

11 : 8 11 

11 : 15 433 

13 : 18 444 

17 : 1, 5 11 

19 : 10 432 

20 341 

21 341 

21 : 27 433 



INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 



Acton, Lord, John Emerich Ed- 
ward Dalbbbg. — Councils, 134, 
135, 137. 

Addis and Arnold. — Censorship of 
Books, 87 ; Penance, 392. 

Alexander, Joseph Addison. — Isa- 
iah, 279 ; Prophecy, 423. 

" All About the Bible," Sidney 
Collett. — Bible Versions, 51 ; 
Bible, 53-56. 

Ambrose. — Antichrist, 10. 

" American Bible Society, Story 
of." — Bible, 54. 

" Amubru, the Home of the North- 
ern Semites," Albert T. Clay. 
— Creation, 139 ; Flood, 195 ; 
Sabbath, 452 ; Ur of the Chaldees, 
483. 

Anderson, Sir Robert. — Daniel, 
Book of, 156. 

Andrews, Samuel J. — Christmas, 
90 ; Jesus Christ, 301-305 ; Mira- 
cles, 342. 

" Ante-Nicene Fathers." — Anti- 
christ, 10. 

"Anti-Infidel Library (The)," H. 

L. Hastings. — Evolution, 178 ; 

Higher Criticism, 234. 
" Archeology and the Bible," 

George A. Barton. — Archeology. 

17 ; Census, 88 ; Chronology, 96 ; 

Hammurabi, 222 ; Israel, 284 ; 

Sabbath, 452 ; Samaritans, 458. 
" Abchbological Discoveries and 

the New Testament Text (The 

New)," (article) Camden M. 

CoBURN. — Archeology, 17 ; Bible, 

36. 
"Arrested Reformation (The)," 

William Muir. — Jesuits, 301. 

Arthur, William. — Councils, 138. 
Atwatbr, Edward E. — Chronology, 
93; Israel, 283. 



Bartoli, Gbokgio. — Forgeries, 196, 
198. 

Barton, George A. — Archeology, 17 ; 
Census, 88 ; Chronology, 96 ; Ham- 
murabi, 222 ; Israel, 284 ; Sab- 
bath, 452 ; Samaritans, 458. 

Bates, William H. — Genealogy of 
Christ, 199. 

" Beacon Lights of History," John 
Lord. — Confucius, 130, 131 ; Pa- 
pacy, Builders of, 378. 

Bebcher, Willis Judson. — Chro- 
nology, 93. 



Bellarmine. — Transubstantiation, 
480, 482. 

Berosus. — Abraham, 5; Babel, 24; 
Babylon, 28, 30. 

" Between the Testaments, or In- 

TEUBIBLICAL HISTORY," DaVID 

Gregg. — Creed, 140. 

" Bible and the British Museum 
(The)." Ada R. Habershon. — 
Bible, 5 ; Chronology, 90 ; Gnosti- 
cism, 211 ; Hammurabi, 223 ; Hit- 
tites, 243 ; Papacy, 375. 

"Bible and the Ministry (The)," 
F. W. Farrar. — Priesthood, 415. 

" Bible and Modern Discoveries 
(The)," Henry A. Harper. — Ex- 
odus, 183 ; Gerizim and Ebal, 
211 ; Jacob's Well, 286 ; Jeph- 
thah's Vow, 289 ; Ophir, 372 ; 
Temple of Solomon, 477. 

BibUcal Review. — Archeology, 17; 
Bible, 36 ; Geology, 209 ; Penta- 
teuch, 393. 

Blaikie, William G. — Antiochus 
Epiphanes, 14 ; Judges, 315 ; Mon- 
archy, 354, 355 ; Palestine, 373 ; 
Peopling of the Earth, 401. 

Bliss, Sylvester. — Artaxerxes, 19. 

"Book of Esther (The)," — Fast- 
ing, 184 ; Jews, 312 ; Postal Sys- 
tem, 412. 

" Book of the Prophet Daniel 
(The)," C. F. Bjeil. — Daniel, 
Book of, 151 ; Kingdom of God, 
319. 

Bower, Archibald. — Papacy, Build- 
ers of, 381. 

Bradford. — Antichrist, 12. 

Brock, Mourant. — Idolatry, 254 ; 
Jesuits, 300. 

Browne, Henry. — Assyria, 22 ; 
Babylon, 26, 28 ; Chronology, 96 ; 
Herod, 225 ; Jerusalem. 291 ; 
Judges, 314 ; Prophets, 437. 

Bruno, Joseph Faa di. — Bible Ver- 
sions, 51, 52 ; Immaculate Con- 
ception, 257. 

Bush, George. — Bible Versions, 50. 

Bushnell, Horace. — Miracles, 343. 

Bryce, James. — Holy Roman Em- 
pire, 243, 244 ; Papacy, Builders 
of, 384. 



" Canon of the Holy Scriptures 
(The)," L. Gaussen.— Canon, 78. 
79. 

Canton, William. — Bible Versions, 
52. 

(495) 



496 



INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 



Care, Jambs. — Indulgences, 266. 

" Catechetical Lectures," Cyril. 
— Antichrist, 10. 

" Catechism, A Doctrinal," Ste- 
phen Keenan. — Infallibility, 274. 

" Catechism of the Catholic Re- 
ligion," Krautheimbr. — Infal- 
libility, 274. 

" Catechism of the Council of 
Trent." — Sacraments, 455 ; Tran- 
substantiation, 481. 

" Catholic Belief," Joseph Faa di 
Bruno. — Bible Versions, 51, 52 ; 
Immaculate Conception, 257. 

"Catholic Dictionary (A)," Ad- 
dis AND Arnold. — Censorstiip of 
Books, 87 ; Penance, 392. 

Catholic Review. — Pope, 411. 

" Censorship of the Church of 
Rome (The)," George Haven 
Putnam. — Bible Versions, 51. 

Chbdorlaomer. — Abraham, 5 ; Am- 
raphel, 8. 

" Christology of the Old Testa- 
ment," E. W. Hengstenbebg. — 
Jesus Christ, 303 ; Prophecy, 416, 
422 ; Prophecies, 432 ; Satan, 460. 

" Chronology, Analysis of Sacred," 
S. Bliss. — Artaxerxes, 19. 

" Chronology and Geography, A. 
New Analysis of," William 
Hales. — Babylon, 26 ; Flood, 190 ; 
Genealogies of Christ, 205 ; Urim 
and Thummim, 484. 

" Chronology of the Holy Scrip- 
tures," Henry Browne. — As- 
syria, 22 ; Babylon, 26, 28 ; Chro- 
nology, 96 ; Herod, 225 ; Jerusa- 
lem, 291 ; Judges, 314 ; Prophets, 
437. 

" Chronological Synopsis of the 
Four Gospels (A)," Karl Wies- 
ELEE. — Calendar, 63 ; Jesus 
Christ, 301, 304. 

Chrysostom. — Antichrist, 10. 

" Church and the French Revolu- 
tion (The)," E. de Pressense. 
— Concordat, 129. 

"Claims of Rome (The)," Samuel 
Smith. — Church of Rome, 127 ; 
Priesthood, 415. 

Clay, Albert T. — Babylon, 30, 81 ; 
Creation, 139 ; Flood, 195 ; Sab- 
bath, 452 ; Ur of the Chaldees, 
483. 

" Clews to Holy Writ," M, L. G. 
Petrie. — History, 240. 

CoBERN, Camden N. — Archeology, 
17; Bible, 36. 

Collett, Sidney. — Bible Versions, 
51 ; Bible, 53-56. 

Collbtb, Charles Hastings. — In- 
dulgences, 260. 

"Companion Bible (The)." — Cal- 
endar, 69 ; Commandments, 127 ; 
Genealogy of Christ, 199 ; Her- 
ods of the New Testament, 226 ; 
Higher Criticism, 235 ; Jerusalem, 



290 ; Miracles, 341 ; Prophets, 
438; Psalm 119, 440; Sennache- 
rib, 463 ; Temple, 474 ; Urim and 
Thummim, 483. 

Ckanmer. — Antichrist, 11. 

" Creation Centred in Christ/' H. 
Geattan Guinness. — Bible, 57. 

" Creeds of the Evangelical Prot- 
estant Churches (The)," 
Philip Schaff. — Bible, 57-59. 

Creighton, M. — Isidorian Decretals, 
281 ; Papacy, Builders of, 385, 
387. 

Curtis, William A. — Arminianism, 
18 ; Buddhism, 60 ; Catechism of 
Trent, 84 ; Creed, 140 ; Creeds, 
141 ; Greek Church, 220 ; West- 
minster Confession, 485, 486. 

" Cyclopedia, New Universal." — 
Creed, Roman, 144. 

Cyril. — Antichrist, 10. 

" Daniel and His Prophecies," 
Charles H. H. Wright. — Baby- 
lon, 29, 30 ; Bible Versions, 50. 

" Daniel in the Critics' Den," Sir 
Robert Anderson. — Daniel, Book 
of, 156. 

" Daniel the Prophet," E. B. Pu- 
sey. — Daniel, Book of, 153, 154. 

" Dated Events of the Old Tes- 
tament (The)," Willis Judson 
Beecher. — Chronology, 93. 

Dearden, H. W. — Immaculate Con- 
ception, 259. 

" Declarations and Letters on the 
Vatican Decrees," J. J. Ign. 
VON Dollinger. — Infallibility, 
269, 274, 276. 

" Defence of the Apology," Jew- 
ell. — Antichrist, 13. 

" Delineation of Roman Catholi- 
cism," Charles Elliott. — Tran- 
substantiation, 481. 

Dens. — Indulgences, 261. 

" Dictionary, New Standard." — 
Creed, Roman, 143 ; Gnosticism, 
211. 

" Dictionary of Christian Biogra- 
phy (A)," Smith and Wace. — 
Canon, 75 ; Donatists, 160 ; 
Ebionism, 164 ; History, 237 ; Pa- 
pacy, Builders of, 380. 

"Dictionary of the Bible (A)," 
William Smith, Teacher's Edi- 
tion. — Bible Versions, 49, 52, 97- 
124 ; Genealogy, 198 ; Genealogy 
of Christ, 200 ; God, Names of, 
216 ; Idolatry, 249 ; Kadesh- 
Barnea, 316 ; Maccabees, 324 ; 
Moses, 356 ; Pentateuch, 393 ; 
Pharaohs, 402 ; Ptolemies af 
Egypt, 442 ; Talmud, 471. 

"Dictionary of the Bible (A)," 
William Smith. — Calendar, 67 ; 
Genealogy of Christ, 204. 

" Dissertations on the Peophb- 
ciEs/' Thomas Newton. — Anti- 



INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 



497 



Christ, 10 ; Chittlm, 88 ; Nineveh, 
358. 

Dion Cassius. — Calendar, 68. 
" Divine Authority of the Bible 
(The)," G. Frederick Wright. 

— Canon, 75, 76. 

" Divinity of Our Lord and Sav- 
iour Jesus Christ (The)," H. 
P. LiDDON. — Isidorian Decretals, 
282 ; Logos, 319. 

"Doctrinal Catechism (A)," Ste- 
phen Keenan. — Infallibility, 274. 

" Dogmatic Canons and Decrees." 

— Celibacy, 85 ; Confirmation, 
129 ; Idolatry, 253 ; Immaculate 
Conception, 257 ; Indulgences, 
262 ; Penance, 392 ; Sacraments, 
454 ; Transubstantiation, 478. 

DoLLiNGERj J. J. Ignaz VON. — For- 
geries, 196, 197 ; Infallibility, 
268-274, 276 ; Isidorian Decretals, 
282 ; Magna Charta, 326. 

Draper, John William. — Images, 
256 ; Magna Charta, 324. 

Dunbar, George. — Baptism, 33. 

Duns Scotus. — Transubstantiation, 
480. 

" Ecclesiastical History, A Com- 
pendium OF," John C. L. Gie- 
SELBR. — Chronology, 93 ; Greek 
Church, 221 ; Isidorian Decretals. 
280 ; Transubstantiation, 480 ; 
Wycliffe, 487. 

"Ecclesiastical History (An)," 
EusEBius. — Canon, 77 ; Edict of 
Milan, 165. 

EderSheim, Alfred. — Bible Ver- 
sions, 48 ; Calendar, 70 ; Old Tes- 
tament, 371. 

" Egypt and Babylon," George Raw- 
LiNSON. — Babylon, 28, 29 ; Egypt, 
166, 167; Idolatry, 248; Isles, 
283 ; Pharaoh-Hophra, 403. 

Elliott, Charles. — Transubstantia- 
tion, 481. 

Elliott, E. B. — Antichrist, 9, 13 ; 
Bible, Suppression of, 59 ; Indul- 
gences, 263, 264 ; Revelation, 
Book of, 446. 

" Encyclopedia Britannica." — Cal- 
endar, 71 ; Conclave, 128 ; Diets, 
159 ; Holy Roman Empire, 244 ; 
Mithraism, 345. 

"Encyclopedia, Catholic." — Bul- 
larium, 61 ; Bulls and Briefs, 62 ; 
Calendar, 67-69; Canon, 74; 
Canon Law, 82, 83 ; Censorship of 
Books, 87 ; Confirmation, 129 ; 
Creed of Pope Pius IV, 142 ; En- 
cyclical, 168 ; Forgeries, 197 ; Idol- 
atry, 247, 255 ; Indulgences, 260 ; 
Interdict, 277 ; Isidorian Decre- 
tals, 280 ; Jesuits, 293, 300 ; Mar- 
riage, 329 ; Schism, the Great, 
461 ; Ultramontanism, 482. 

" Encyclopedia, Thd International 
Standard Bible." — Ahasuerus, 
8 ; Apocrypha, 14 ; Arabah, 16 ; 



Asherah, 22 ; Baal-peor, 23 ; Beel- 
zebub, 33; Bible, 34; Bible Ver- 
sions, 48 ; Canon, 74, 77 ; Chro- 
nology, 90 ; Cross, 146 ; Epistles, 
169 ; Flood, 191 ; Greece, 218 ; 
Herodians, 225 ; Higher Criticism, 
228 ; Man, Origin of, 327 ; Moab- 
ite Stone, 348 ; Papyri, 391 ; Pen- 
tateuch, 396 ; Pharisees, 403 ; 
Sadducees, 457 ; Sanhedrin, 458 ; 
Sect, 462; Talmud, 471. 
" Encyclopedia, Jewish." — Calen- 
dar, 67 ; Feasts, 186 ; Masorah, 
332; Sanhedrin, 459; Talmud, 
470 ; Targum, 474. 

" Encyclopedia, Nelson's." — Ar- 
minianism, 18 ; Diets of Worms, 
160 ; Magna Charta, 325 ; Moham- 
medanism, 353 ; Rosetta Stone, 
450. 

" Encyclopedia, New Schaff-Hbr- 
zoG." — Bible, 53, 54; Bulls, 62; 
Calendar, 70, 71 ; Celibacy, 85 ; 
Censorship of Books, 86 ; Church, 
125, 126 ; Concordats, 129 ; Coun- 
cils, 133 ; Curia, 148 ; Daniel, 
Book of, 155 ; Easter, 162 ; Evo- 
lution, 171 ; Gnosticism, 211 ; 
Greek Catholic Church, 220 ; 
Greek Church, 220 ; Hammurabi, 
221 ; Holy Roman Empire, 244 ; 
Humanists, 247 ; Immaculate 
Conception, 259 ; Interdict, 277 ; 
Jesuits, 295, 299 ; Logos, 319 ; 
Mithraism, 346 ; Mohammedan- 
ism, 353 ; Sacraments, 454 ; 
Schism, the Great, 461. 

" Encyclopedia of the World's 
Knowledge, Standard." — Hin- 
duism, 236 ; Moabite Stone, 347 ; 
Mohammedanism, 352. 

Eusebius. — Canon, 77 ; Edict of 
Milan, 165. 

" Evidences of Christianity/' Mark 
Hopkins. — Jesus Christ, 311 ; 
Messiah, 335. 

"Excavations at Babylon (The)," 
Robert Koldeway. — Babylon, 32. 

" Extra vagantes Communes." — In- 
dulgences, 262. 

" Fables Respecting the Popes of 
the Middle Ages," J. J. Ign. von 
Dollinger. — Infallibility, 270. 

" Failure of the ' Higher Criti- 
cism ' of the Bible," Emil 
Reich. — Higher Criticism, 233. 

Fairbairn, Andrew Martin. — Bud- 
dhism, 61 ; Caste, 83 ; Confucian- 
ism, 130; Evolution, 174; Fath- 
erhood, 185 ; Logos, 320, 321 ; 
Miracles, 337, 339 ; Mohammedan- 
ism, 352 ; Pantheism, 373, 374. 

" Familiar Explanation of Catho- 
lic Doctrine," M. Mullbb. — in- 
dulgences, 262. 

Farrar, F. W. — Priesthood, 415; 

Prophecies, 433 ; Prophet, 437. 
Ferraris, P. F. Lucirs. — Pope, 409. 



498 



INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 



" First Epistle of Paul to the 
Corinthians (The)," Christian 
Friedrich Kling. — Soul, 467. 

" Five Great Monarchies of the 
Ancient Eastern World (The)," 
George Rawlinson. — Babylon, 
26, 27; Creation, 140; Israel, 
284; Pul, 442; Sennacherib's Re- 
port, 462. 

Flick, Alexander Clarence. — Holy 
Roman Empire, 243 ; Magna 
Charta, 326 ; Papacy, Builders of, 
385, 387, 388. 

" Fourteen Years a Jesuit," Count 
Paul von Hoensbroech. — Jes- 
uits, 292, 296, 297. 

" Fresh Light from the Ancient 
Monuments," A. H. Sayce. — 
Abraham, 6 ; Canaan, 71 ; Egypt, 
168 ; Genesis, 206 ; Hittites, 242 ; 
Jehovah, 287 ; Josiah, 313 ; Moab- 
ite Stone, 347 ; Siloam Inscrip- 
tion, 466 ; Tiglath-Pileser, 477. 

" Fulfilled Prophecy," W. Goode. 
— Idolatry, 254 ; Jesus Christ, 
309; Nahum, 357; Nineveh, 358; 
Prophecy, 419, 429 ; Stephen, 
468. 

"Fundamentals (The)." — Evolu- 
tion, 173. 

Funk, F. X. — Celibacy, 85 ; Jesuits, 
297. 

Garnier, J. — Idolatry, 247, 248, 252- 
254 ; Priesthood, 413. 

Gaussbn, L. — Canon, 78, 79. 

Gibbon, Edward. — Isidorian Decre- 
tals, 282 ; Miracles, 342. 

GiESELER, John C. L. — Chronology, 
93 ; Greek Church, 221 ; Isidorian 
Decretals, 280 ; Transubstantia^ 
tion, 480 ; Wycliffe, 487. 

Gill, Thomas H. — Council of Trent, 
134. 

GiRDLESTONE,. R. B. — Evolutiou, 
178; God, •Names of, 214. 

Gladstone, W. E. — Councils, 136 ; 
Infallibility, 267 ; Papacy, 377 ; 
Roman Catholic Church, 447 ; 
Rome, 448. 

" Gleig's Wonderful Book Concern- 
ing THE Most Wonderful Book 
IN THE World/^ George Robert 
Gleig. — Chronology, 94. 

" God's Two Books," George Mc- 
Crbady Price. — Evolution, 179, 
181; Geology, 208. 

" God Hath Spoken." — Canon, 77. 

Goode, W. — Idolatry, 254 ; Jesus 
Christ, 309 ; Nahum, 357 ; Nine- 
veh, 358 ; Prophecy, 419, 429 ; 
Stephen, 468. 

Gore, Charles. — Infallibility, 272. 

" Gospel of Life in the Syriac 
New Testament (The)," Prof. 
J. H. Pbttingell. — Apostasy, 16. 

Guinness, H. Gbattan. — Bible, 57 ; 
Creed of Pope Pius IV, 141 ; Mir- 
acles, 338. 



Guinness, Mr. and Mrs. H. Gbattan. 
— Prophecy, 418. 

Greene, William Henry. — Genesis, 
205 ; God, Names of, 215 ; Higher 
Criticism, 229, 231 ; Old Testa- 
ment, 368, 370; Pentateuch, 394- 
396. 

Gregg, David. — Creed, 140. 

Gregory the Great. — Antichrist, 10, 



Habershon, Ada R. — Abraham, 5 ; 
Chronology, 90 ; Gnosticism, 211 ; 
Hammurabi, 223 ; Hittites, 243 ; 
Papacy, 375. 

Hagenbach, K. R. — Baptism, 34 ; 
Church, 126; Diets, 159; Immac- 
ulate Conception, 259 ; Indul- 
gences, 263; Jesus Christ, 307; 
Lord's Supper, 321, 323 ; Purga- 
tory, 442, 443; Roman Catholic 
Church, 446 ; Sacraments, 456 ; 
Servetus, 464. 

Hales, William. — Babylon, 26 ; 
Flood, 190 ; Genealogies of Christ, 
205 ; Urim and Thummim, 484. 

Haley, John W.— Fasting, 184; 
Jews, 312; Postal System, 412. 

Hallam, Henry. — Isidorian Decre- 
tals, 280. 

" Hand of God in History (The) " 
William A. Spicer.— Artaxerxes, 

"Handbook to the Controversy 
WITH Rome," Karl von Hasb.— 
Infallibility, 276. 

Harper, Edward. — Idolatry, 255. 

Harper, Henry A. — Exodus, 183 ; 
S.®'^,^i^^^o«^^^ ^bal, 211; Jacob's 
Well, 286; Jephthah's Vow, 289; 
Ophir, 372; Temple of Solomon, 
477. 

Hase, Karl von. — Infallibility, 276. 
Hastings, H. L. — Evolution, 178; 
Higher Criticism, 234. 

Hefele, Charles Joseph. — Councils. 
131-133. 

Hengstenberg, E. W. — Jesus Christ 
303; Prophecy, 416, 422; Proph- 
ecies, 432; Revelation, Book of, 
445 ; Satan, 460. 

" Higher Criticism of the Penta- 
teuch (The)," William Henry 
Green. — God, Names of, 215 ; 
Higher Criticism, 229, 231 ; Old 
Testament, 368, 370; Pentateuch, 
394-396. 

HiSLOP, Alexander. — Babylon, 33 ; 
Christmas, 89 ; Cross, 145 ; 
Easter, 161 ; Idolatry, 250, 252 ; 
Religions of the East, 444 ; Vir- 
gin Mary, 484, 485. 

" Historians' History of the 
World (The)." — Hittites, 241. 

" Historical Evidences of the 
Truth of the Scripture Rec- 
ords (The)," George Rawlinson. 
— Abraham, 5 ; Ahasuerus, 7 ; 



INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 



499 



Babel, 24 ; Babylon, 29 ; Egypt, 
166 ; Flood, 191 ; Miracles, 337, 
340 ; Pentateuch, 394 ; Peopling 
of the Earth, 402. 

' Historical Introduction to the 
Study of the Books of the 
New Testament (A)," George 
Salmon. — Canon, 77 ; Mark's 
Gospel, 328; Matthew's Gospel, 
332. 

' Historical Studies," Eugene Law- 
rence.— Jesuits, 294, 298; Pa- 
pacy, Builders of, 385. 

' History and Significance of the 
Sacred Tabernacle of the He- 
brews," Edward E. Atwater. — 
Chronology, 93 ; Israel, 283. 

' History of Auricular Confes- 
sion," Count C. P. de Lastbyrie. 
— Indulgences, 265. 

' History of Christian Doctrines 
(A)," Dr. K. R. Hagbnbach. — 
Baptism, 34 ; Church, 126 ; Im- 
maculate Conception, 259 ; Jesus 
Christ, 307; Lord's Supper, 321, 
323 ; Purgatory, 442, 443 ; Roman 
Catholic Church, 446. 

' History op Europe During the 
Middle Ages," Henry Hallam. — 
Isidorian Decretals, 280. 

' History of Freedom (The)," John 
Emerich Edward Dalberg- Acton. 
—Councils, 134, 135, 137. 

■ History of the British and For- 
eign Bible Society (A)," Wil- 
liam Canton.— Bible Versions, 
52. 
History of the Canon of the 
New Testament, General Sur- 
vey OF THE," Brooke Foss West- 
COTT. — Canon, 80. 
History of the Church (A)," 

Socrates. — Easter, 162. 
History of the Church Councils 
(A) " Charles Joseph Hefele. 
-—Councils, 131-133. 

' History of the Christian 
Church," Philip Schaff. — 
Greek Church, 218. 
Histoby op the Christian 
Church in the Middle Ages,' 
Db. Wilhblm Moeller. — Greek 
Church, 219; Isidorian Decretals, 
281. 

' History of the Christian Reli- 
gion and Church, General," Dr. 
Augustus Neandeb. — Images, 
255. 

' History of the Creeds and Con- 
fessions OF Faith (A)," Wil- 
liam A. Curtis. — Arminianism, 
18 ; Buddhism, 60 ; Catechism of 
Trent, 84 ; Creed, 140, 141 ; 
Greek Church, 220 ; Westminster 
Confession, 485, 486. 

' History of the Decline and Fall 
OP the Roman Empire (The)," 
Edward Gibbon. — Isidorian De- 
cretals, 282; Miracles, 342. 



" History op the Intellectual De- 
velopment OF Europe," John 
William Draper. — Images, 256 ; 
Magna Charta, 324. 

" History of the Jesuits," G. B. 
NicoLiNi. — Jesuits, 300. 

"History op the Papacy (A)," M. 
Creighton. — Isidorian Decretals, 
281 ; Papacy, Builders of, 385, 
387. 

"History of the Popes (The)," 

Archibald Bower. — Papacy, 

Builders of, 381. 
" History of the Reformation," 

K. R. Hagenbach. — Diets, 159 ; 

Indulgences, 263 ; Sacraments, 

456; Servetus, 464. 

" History of the Reformation 
(A)," Thomas M. Lindsay. — Holy 
Roman Empire, 245 ; Interdict, 
277. 

" History op Rome," Dion Cassius. 
— Calendar, 68. 

" History op the World," John 
Clark Ridpath. — Rome, 449. 

HOENSBROECH, PAUL VON. JcSUitS, 

292, 296, 297. 

"Holy Roman Empire (The)," 
James Bryce. — Holy Roman Em- 
pire, 243, 244 ; Papacy, Builders 
of, 384. 

" Homilies op the Church op Eng- 

LAND."' — Antichrist, 12. 
Hooper, Bishop. — Antichrist, 12. 

Hopkins, Mark. — Jesus Christ, 311 ; 
Messiah, 335. 

" Hor^ Apocalyptic^," E. B. El- 
liott. — Antichrist, 9, 13 ; Bible, 
59 ; Indulgences, 263, 264 ; Reve- 
lation, Book of, 446. 

HoBNE, Thomas Hartwbll. — Apoc- 
rypha, 15 ; Bible "Versions, 48 ; 
Calendar, 66 ; Canon, 72, 76 ; Cru- 
cifixion, 148 ; Herod, 228 ; Jubilee, 
314 ; Miracles, 336, 337 ; Phari- 
sees, 405 ; Pontius Pilate, 406 ; 
Prophecy, 416, 417, 420; Saddu- 
cees, 457 ; Samaritans, 458 ; Tar- 
gum, 472. 

Huxley, T. H. — Evolution, 172. 



Ideler. — Calendar, Day, 62. 

" Illustrations op Biblical Liter- 
ature," James Townley. — Bible 
Versions, 50. 

" Immaculate Conception," Wil- 
liam Bernard Ullathorne. — Im- 
maculate Conception, 258. 

Independent, The. — Evolution, 174. 

" Infallibility op the Church 
(The)," George Salmon. — Infal- 
libility, 277. 

" Inside View op the Vatican 
Council (An)," Archbishop 
Kenrick. — Infallibility, 269. 

" Institutes op Ecclesiastical His- 
tory," MosHEiM. — Apostasy, 16 ; 
IsWorian Decretals, 281. 



600 



INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 



" Inteoduction to the Critical 
Study and Knowledge of the 
Holy Scriptures (An)," Thomas 
Hartwell Horne. — Apocrypha, 
15 ; Bible Versions, 48 ; Calendar, 
66; Canon,' 72, 76; Crucifixion, 
148 ; Herod, 228 ; Jubilee, 314 ; 

'4 Miracles, 336, 337; Pharisees, 

-'^^405; Pontius Pilate, 406; Proph- 

■•'• ecy, 416, 417, 420; Sadducees, 
457 ; Samaritans, 458 ; Targum, 
472. 

" Introduction to the Old Testa- 
ment (An)," Charles H. H. 
Wright. — Bible Versions, 49, 53 ; 
Masorah, 331 ; Pentateuch, 393 ; 
Targum, 474. 

Isaacson, Charles S. — Jesuits, 299 ; 
Pope, 411. 

" Isaiah Translated and Ex- 
plained," Joseph Addison Alex- 
ander. — Isaiah, 279 ; Prophecy, 
423. 

Janus (Dollinger). — Forgeries, 

196, 197; Infallibility, 268, 271- 

273 ; Isidorian Decretals, 282 ; 

Magna Charta, 326 ; Virgin Mary, 

485. 
'• Jehovah Titles," James Spbunt. 

— Jehovah, 288. 
Jenkins, Robert Charles. — Idol- 
atry, 253 ; Transubstantiation, 479. 
Jerome. — Antichrist, 10. 
Jewel, Bishop. — Antichrist, 12. 
JosEPHUS. — Canon, 74. 
Jukes, Andrew. — Forever, 196 ; 

God, Names of, 217 ; Offering, 

359-367. 

" Kadesh-Barnea," H. Clay Trum- 
bull. — Baal-Zephon, 24 ; Edom, 
166 ; Kadesh-Barnea, 315-317. 

Kbenan, Stephen. — Infallibility, 
274. 

Keil, C. F. — Daniel, Book of, 151 ; 
Kingdom of God, 319. 

Kbnrick, Archbishop. — Infallibil- 
ity, 269. 

Kbnyon, Frederic G. — Bible Ver- 
sions, 50, 51. 

"Keys to the Word," A. T. Pihb- 
soN. — Bible, Key Words to, 46. 

KiLLBN, W. D.— Decretal Letters, 
159. 

Kling, Christian Fribdrich. — Soul, 
467. 

Koldeway, Robert. — Babylon, 32. 

Krautheimbr. — Infallibility, 274. 

Lactantius. — Antichrist, 10. 

LASTEYRiB, C. P. DB.— Indulgences, 
265. 

Latimer. — Antichrist, 11. 

" Law and the Prophets (The) ," 
Stanley Leathes. — Modern The- 
ology, 351. 



"Law of the Offerings (The)," 
Andrew Jukes. — Offering, 359- 
367. 

Lawrence, Eugene. — Jesuits, 294, 
298 ; Papacy, Builders of, 385. 

Lea, Henry C. — Magna Charta, 326 ; 
Pope, 410. 

Leathes, Stanley. — Daniel, Book 
of, 159 ; History, 241 ; Jesus 
Christ, 306 ; Modern Theology, 
351 ; Prophecy, 425. 

" Lectures on the History of 
Christian Dogmas," Dr. Augus- 
tus Neander. — Indulgences, 260 ; 
Lord's Supper, 322 ; Transubstan- 
tiation, 480. 

" Letters from Rome," Quirinus 
(Lord Acton). — Infallibility, 
273. 

" Letters to M. Gondon," Christo- 
pher Wordsworth. — Canon, 73, 
78, 81 ; Creed of Pope Pius IV, 
141 ; Pope, 407, 410. 

Lepicier, Alexius M. — Pope, 409. 

" Lexicon, Greek-English," George 
Dunbar. — ^Baptism, 33. 

" Lexicon, Greek-English," Lid- 
dell AND Scott. — Baptism, 33. 

" Lexicon, Greek," E. A. Sophocles. 
— Baptism, 33. 

" Lexicon of the New Testament^ 
Greek-English (A) ." — Baptism, 
34. 

" Library of Original Sources 
(The) ." — Augsburg Confession, 
23 ; Babel, 25 ; Fathers, 185 ; 
Flood, 193 ; Mohammed, 351 ; 
Pliny, 406 ; Rosetta Stone, 450 ; 
Sabbath, 453 ; Sennacherib's Re- 
port, 463 ; Sodom and Gomorrah, 
466; Sunday, 468. 

LiDDELL AND ScoTT. — Baptism, 33. 

LiDDON, H. p. — Isidorian Decretals, 

282 ; Logos, 319. 
" Life and Times of Jesus the 

Messiah (The)," Alfred Eder- 

SHEiM. — Bible Versions, 48 ; Old 

Testament, 371. 
" Life of Our Lord upon the Earth 

(The)," Samuel J. Andrews. — 

Christmas, 90 ; Jesus Christ, 301- 

305 ; Miracles, 342. 
•' Light for the Last Days," Mr. 

AND Mrs. H. Grattan Guinness. 

— Prophecy, 418. 
" Light on the Old Testament 

FROM Babel," Albert T. Clay. — 

Babylon, 30, 31. 
LiGORio. — Canon Law, 83 ; Jesuits, 

295 ; Syllabus of Errors, 470. 
Lindsay, Thomas M. — Holy Roman 

Empire, 245 ; Interdict, 277. 

Littlbdalb, Robert Frederick. — 
Idolatry, 255; Images, 256; In- 
fallibility, 276; Schism, the 
Great, 462 ; Ultramontanism, 482. 

Lord, John. — Confucius, 130, 131 ; 
Papacy, Builders of, 378. 



INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 



501 



" Luthbk's Pbimaey Works," Wage 
AND BucHHHiM. — Indulgences, 
266 ; Sacraments, 456. 



Manning, H. Edward Cardinal. — 
Councils, 135, 136; Pope, 409. 

"Manual of Bible History (A)," 
William G. Blaikib. — Antiochus 
Epiphanes, 14 ; Judges, 315 ; Mon- 
archy, 354, 355; Palestine, 373; 
Peopling of the Earth, 401. 

" Manual of Christian Doctrine." 

— Transubstantiation, 479. 

" Manual of Church History," F. 
X. Punk. — Celibacy, 85. 

" Manual of Instructions in Chris- 
tian Doctrine." — Indulgences, 
266. 

"Manual of Moral Theology (A)," 
Thomas Slater. — Canon Law, 
81. 

McKiM, R. H. — Infallibility, 270, 
275 ; Magna Charta, 325. 

McNicnoLAS, John T. — Marriage, 
329, 330. 

" Medieval and Modern History," 
Philip Van Ness Myers. — In- 
terdict, 278 ; Magna Charta, 325 ; 
Monasticism, 356. 

"Minor Prophets (The)," F. W. 
Farrar. — Prophecies, 433 ; Proph- 
et, 437. 

" Modern Romanism Examined," 
H. W. Dbarden. — Immaculate 
Conception, 259. 

" Modernism and the Reforma- 
tion," John Benjamin Rust. — 
Censorship of Books, 88; Serve- 
tus, 464 ; Transubstantiation, 479. 

MoEHLER, John Adam, — Canon, 73 ; 
Creed, Roman, 144; Infallibility, 
274 ; Sacraments, 455, 456 ; 
Transubstantiation, 481. 

MoBLLER, WiLHBLM. — Greek Church, 
219 ; Isidorian Decretals, 281. 

" Monuments and the Old Testa- 
ment (The)," Ira Maurice 
Price. — Chronology, 95; Esther, 
171 ; Old Testament, 372 ; Sab- 
bath, 453. 

"Monument Facts and Higher 
Critical Fancies," A. H. Saycb. 

— Amraphel, 8, 9; Hammurabi, 
222 ; Higher Criticism, 235. 

Mosheim.— Apostasy, 16; Isidorian 

Decretals, 281. 
Muib, William.— Jesuits, 301. 
MULLER, M. — Indulgences, 262. 
Mttt t.ins E. Y. — Agnosticism, 7 ; 
^""EvolutioS 172, J75 ; Miracles, 

336, 337, 339; Pantheism, 374, 

375. 
MTUBS, Philip Van Ness.— Inter- 

diS, 278; Magna Charta, 325; 

Monasticism, 356. 



" Names of God in Holy Scripture," 

Andrew Jukes. — Forever, 196 ; 

God, Names of, 217. 
" Nature and the Supernatural," 

Horace Bushnell. — Miracles. 

343. 

Neander, Augustus. — Images, 255 ; 
Indulgences, 260 ; Lord's Supper, 
322 ; Transubstantiation, 480. 

" New Marriage Legislation 
(The)," John T. McNicholas. — 
Marriage, 329, 330. 

Newman, John Henry. — Infallibil- 
ity, 273. 

Newton, Thomas. — Antichrist, 10 ; 
Chittim, 88 ; Nineveh, 358. 

NicoLiNi, G. B. — Jesuits, 300. 

" NiCENE AND POST-NICENB FA- 
THERS." — Antichrist, 10, 11. 

" Notes, Critical and Practical, on 
THE Book of Genesis," George 
Bush. — Bible Versions, 50. 

" Notes on the Miracles of Our 
Lord," Richard Chenbvix 
Trench. — Miracles, 336, 340. 

"Novelties of Romanism (The)," 
Charles Hastings Collbte. — 
Indulgences, 260. 



"Old Catholic Church (The)," 
W. D. Killbn. — Decretal Letters, 
159. 

" Old Testament Prophecy," Stan- 
ley Leathes. — Daniel, Book of, 
159. 

" Old Testament Theology and 
Modern Ideas," R. B. Girdle- 
stone. — Evolution, 178 ; God, 
Names of, 214. 

" On the Inspiration of Holy 
Scripture," Christopher Words- 
worth. — Canon, 72, 73, 79-81. 

" On the Sacrament of the Eu- 
charist," Bella RMiNE. — Tran- 
substantiation, 480, 482. 

" On This Rock," H. Grattan Guin- 
ness. — Miracles, 338. 

OosTERZEE, J. J. Van. — Miracles, 338. 

"Origin of Nations (The)," 
George Rawlinson. — Peopling of 
the World, 399. 

" Our Bible and the Ancient Man- 
uscripts," Frederic G. Kbnyon. 
— Bible Versions, 50, 51. 

" Our Brief Against Rome," 
Charles Stutevillh Isaacson. — 
Jesuits, 299 ; Pope, 411. 

" Outlines of Modern Christian- 
ity AND Modern Science," 
George McCready Price. — Evo- 
lution, 179 ; Flood, 187, 188, 190 ; 
Geology, 207. 



"Papacy (The)," J. A. Wylib. — 
Canon Law, 82. 

"Papal Drama (The)," Thomas H. 
Gill. — Councils, 134. 



502 



INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 



" Person and Work of the Re- 
deemer (The)," J. J. Van Oos- 
TERZBE. — Miracles, 338. 

Petrib, L. G. — History, 240. 

Pettingill. — Apostasy, 16. 

" Philosophy of the Christian Re- 
ligion (The)," Andrew Martin 
Fairbairn. — Buddhism, 61 
Caste, 83 ; Confucianism, 130 
Evolution, 174 ; Logos, 320, 321 
Miracles, 337, 339; Mohammed 
anism, 352 ; Pantheism, 373. 

" Philosophy of the Plan op Sal- 
vation," James B. Walker. — 
Miracles, 339. 

Philpot, Archdeacon. — Antichrist, 
12. 

PiERSON, A. T. — Bible, Keywords to, 
46. 

" Place of Christ in Modern The- 
ology (The)," a. M. Fairbairn. 
— Forgeries, 185 ; Pantheism, 374. 

" Plain Lectures on the Growth 
of the Papal Power," James 
Craigie Robertson. — Papacy, 
Builders of, 378, 379, 381-384, 
387. 

" Plain Reasons Against Joining 
the Church of Rome," Rich- 
ard Frederick Littledalb. — 
Idolatry, 255, 256; Infallibility, 
276; Schism, the Great, 462; Ul- 
tramontanism, 482. 

"Pope and the Council (The)," 
Janus (Dr. J. J. Ign. von Bol- 
linger). — Forgeries, 196, 197 ; 
Infallibility, 268, 271-273; Isido- 
rian Decretals, 282 ; Magna 
Charta, 326 ; Virgin Mary, 485. 

" Pope Honorius," Willis. — Infalli- 
bility, 272. 

" Pope, the Kings, and the People 
(The)," William Arthur. — 
Councils, 138. 

Pressensb, E. de. — Concordat of 
Napoleon, 129. 

Price, George McCready. — Evolu- 
tion, 172, 173, 175-177, 179-181; 
Flood, 187, 188, 190; Geology, 
207-209. 

Price, Ira Maurice. — Chronology, 
95 ; Esther, 171 ; Old Testament, 
372 ; Sabbath, 453. 

" Primitive Church and the Pri- 
macy OF Rome (The)," Prof. 
Giorgio Bartoli. — Forgeries, 
196, 198. 

•♦ Prompta Bibliotheca," Rev. P. F. 
Lucius Ferraris. — Pope, 409. 

" Prophetic Visions in the Book 
of Daniel, Remarks on," Tre- 
6BLLES. — Daniel, Book of, 153. 

PuSBY, E. B. — Daniel, Book of, 153, 
154, 157. 

PUTNAM, George Haven. — Bible Ver- 
sions, 51. 



" Q. E. D., or New Light on the 
Doctrine of Creation," George 
McCready Price. — Evolution, 
172, 173, 175-177, 180. 



Rawlinson, George. — Abraham, 5 ; 
Ahasuerus, 7 ; Ashtoreth, 22 ; Ba- 
bel, 24 ; Babil, 25 ; Babylon, 26-29 ; 
Creation, 140 ; Criticism, 145 ; 
Egypt, 166-168 ; Flood, 191 ; Idol- 
atry, 248, 249; Isles, 283; Israel, 
284 ; Miracles, 337, 340 ; Penta- 
teuch, 394 ; Peopling of the World, 
399 ; Peopling of the Earth, 402 ; 
Pharaoh-Hophra, 403 ; Pul, 442 ; 
Sennacherib's Report, 462 ; Tam- 
muz, 472 ; Zoroaster, 487. 

Reich, Emil. — Higher Criticism, 233. 

Reichel, O. J. — Holy Roman Em- 
pire, 246 ; Isidorian Decretals, 
283 ; Papacy, Builders of, 389 ; 
Schism, The Great, 462. 

" Religions of the Ancient World 
The)," George Rawlinson. — 
Ashtoreth, 22 ; Babil, 25 ; Baby- 
•lon, 26-28; Egypt, 168; Idolatry, 
249 ; Tammuz, 472 ; Zoroaster, 
487. 

"Religion of the Christ (The)," 
Stanley Leathes. — History, 
241 ; Jesus Christ, 306 ; Prophecy, 
the Christ of, 425. 

"Revelation of St. John (The)," 
E. W. Hengstenbebg. — Revela- 
tion, Book of, 445. 

Richards, W. J. B. — Indulgences, 
266. 

Ridley. — Antichrist, 11. 

Ridpath, John Clark. — Rome, 449. 

" Rise of the Mediaeval Church 
(The)," Alexander Clarence 
Flick. — Holy Roman Empire, 
245 ; Magna Charta, 326 ; Pa- 
pacy, Builders of, 385, 387, 388. 

Robertson, James Craigie. — Pa- 
pacy, Builders of, 378, 379, 381- 
383, 384, 387. 

" Romanism : A Doctrinal and His- 
torical Examination op the 
Creed of Pope Pius IV," Rob- 
ert Charles Jenkins. — Idol- 
atry, 253 ; Transubstantiation, 
479. 

" Romanism and the Reformation," 
H. Grattan Guinness. — Creed of 
Pope Pius IV, 141. 

" Romanism in the Light of His- 
tory," Randolph H. McKim. — 
Infallibility, 270, 275. 

" Roman Catholic Claims," Charles 
Gore. — Infallibility, 272. 

" Rome and the Newest Fashions 
IN Religion," William E. Glad- 
stone. — Councils, 136 ; Infalli- 
bility, 267; Papacy, 377. 

" Rome, Antichrist, and the Pa- 
pacy," Edward Harper. — Idol- 
atry, 255. 



INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 



503 



" RoMB : Pagan and Papal," Mou- 
KANT Brock. — Idolatry, 254 ; Jes- 
uits, 300. 

Rust, John Benjamin. — Censorship 
of Books, 88 ; Servetus, 464 ; 
Transubstantiation, 479. 



"Sacramento Enchristi.s} (De)," 
Bellarminb. — Transubstantia- 
tion, 482. 

" St. Hippolytus and the Church 
OF Rome," Christopher Words- 
worth. — Infallibility, 266. 

Salmon, George. — Canon, 77 ; Infal- 
libility, 277; Mark's Gospel, 328; 
Matthew's Gospel, 332. 

Sampey, John R. — Judges, 315 ; 
Law, 319. 

Sayce, a. H. — Abraham, 6 ; Amra- 
phel, 8, 9 ; Canaan, 71 ; Egypt, 
168 ; Genesis, 206 ; Hammurabi, 
222 ; Higher Criticism, 235 ; Hit- 
tites, 242 ; Jehovah, 287 ; Josiah, 
313 ; Moabite Stone, 347 ; Siloam 
Inscription, 466; Tiglath-Pileser, 
477. 

ScHAFF, Philip. — Bible, 57-59 ; 
Greek Church, 218. 

" See of Rome in the Middle Ages 
(The)," Oswald J. Reichel. — 
Holy Roman Empire, 246 ; Isido- 
rian Decretals, 283; Papacy, 
Builders of, 389 ; Schism, The 
Great, 462. 

Slater, Thomas. — Canon Law, 81. 

Smith, Samuel. — Church of Rome, 
127; Priesthood, 415. 

Smith, William. — Bible Versions, 
49, 52 ; Calendar, 67 ; Chronolog- 
ical Tables, 97-124 ; Genealogy, 
198; Genealogy of Christ, 200, 
204 ; God, Names of, 216 ; Idol- 
atry, 249 ; Kadesh-Barnea, 316 ; 
Maccabees, 324 ; Moses, 356 ; Pen- 
tateuch, 393 ; Pharaohs, 402 ; 
Ptolemies of Egypt, 442 ; Talmud, 
471. 

Smith and Wace (" Dictionary of 
THE Bible"). — Canon, 75; Don- 
atists, 160 ; Ebionism, 164 ; His- 
tory, 237 ; Papacy, Builders of, 
380. 

Socrates. — Easter, 162. 

SoLTAUj Henry W. — Israel, 285. 

Sophocles, E. A. — Baptism, 33. 

Spicer, William A. — Artaxerxes, 
20, 21. 

Sprunt, James. — Jehovah, 288. 

" Stabilitate bt Progrbssu Dogma- 
tis (De)," Alexius M. Lbpicier. 
Pope, 409. 

" Story of the American Bible So- 
ciety." — Bible, 54. 

" Studies in the Book of Daniel," 
Robert D. Wilson. — Babylon, 
30, 31. 



" Studies in Church History," 
Henry C. Lea. — Magna Charta, 
326 ; Pope, 410. 

" Study in the Genealogy of Jesus 
(A)," William H. Bates. — Gen- 
ealogy of Christ, 199. 

" Syllabus for Old Testament 
Study," John R. Sampey. — 
Judges, 315 ; Law, 319. 

" Symbolism," John Adam Moehler. 

— Creed, Roman, 144 ; Infallibil- 
ity, 274 ; Sacraments, 455, 456 ; 
Transubstantiation, 481. 

" Tabernacle, the Priesthood, and 
the Offerings (The)," Henry 
W. SoLTAU. — Israel, 285. 

Tablet, The. — Priesthood, 413. 

"Temple, (The)." — Calendar, 70. 

" Thbologia," Dens. — Indulgences, 
261. 

Tbrtullian. — Antichrist, 9. 

" Theologia Moralis," Ligorio. — 

Canon Law, 83 ; Jesuits, 295 ; 

Syllabus of Errors, 470. 

ThomaSj W. H. Griffith. — Canon, 
77. 

Thomson, J. E. H. — Pentateuch, 393. 
Townley, James. — Bible Versions, 
50. 

Tregblles, S. p. — Daniel, Book of, 
152. 

Trench, Richard Chenevix. — Mir- 
acles, 336, 340. 

" True Christ and the False 
Christ (The)," J. Garnier. — 
Idolatry, 247, 248, 252-254; 
Priesthood, 413. 

" True Story of the Vatican Coun- 
cil (The),'; Henry Edward Car- 
dinal Manning. — Councils, 135, 
136. 

Trumbull, H. Clay. — Baal-Zephon, 
24 ; Edom, 166 ; Kadesh-Barnea, 
315-317. 

"Two Babylons (The)," Alexan- 
der Hislop. — Babylon, 33 ; 
Christmas, 89 ; Cross, 145 ; 
Easter, 161 ; Idolatry, 250, 252 ; 
Religions of the East, 444 ; Vir- 
gin Mary, 484, 485. 

Tyndale. — Antichrist, 11. 

Ullathorne, William Bernard. — 
Immaculate Conception, 258. 

" Union with Rome," Christopher 
Wordsworth. — Infallibility, 266 ; 
Pope, 408, 410. 

" Unity of the Book of Genesis 
(The)," William Henry Green. 

— Genesis, 205. 



"Vatican Decrees (The)," Henry 
Edward Cardinal Manning. — 
Pope, 409. 



504 



INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 



"Vatican Deceebs (The), in Their 
Bearing on Civil Allegiance," 
Hon. W. B. Gladstone. — Roman 
Catholic Church, 447-; Rome, 448. 

Wage and Buchheim. — Indulgences, 

265 ; Sacraments, 456. 
Walker, James B. — Miracles, 339. 
Westcott, Brooke Foss. — Canon, 80. 

Western Watchman (The). — Indul- 
gences, 261 ; Marriage, 329. 

" Why Is Christianity True ? " E. 
Y. MuLLiNS. — Agnosticism, 7 ; 
Evolution, 172, 175 ; Miracles, 
336, 337, 339 ; Pantheism, 374, 
375. 



WiESELER, KA.RL. — Calendar, Day, 
63; Jesus Christ, 301, 304. 

Wilson, Robert D. — Babylon, 30, 
31. 

Wordsworth, Christopher. — 
Canon, 72, 73, 78-81 ; Creed of 
Pope Pius IV, 141 ; Infallibility, 
266; Pope, 407, 408, 410. 

Wright, Charles H. H. — Babylon, 
29, 30 ; Bible Versions, 49, 50, 53 ; 
Masorah, 331 ; Pentateuch, 393 ; 
Targum, 474. 

Wright, G. Frederick. — Canon, 75, 
76. 

Wylie, J. A. — Canon Law, 82. 



GENERAL INDEX 



" Abomination," 407. 

Absolution, 264, 265. 

Acts, key word to, 42. 

Acts of the Apostles, time of writing 

of, 34. 
Adon, 213, 287. 
Adonai, 213, 216, 287, 288. 
Adonis, 471. 
Adrian I, 280. 
Adrian VI, 272. 
^schylus, 28, 435. 
Ahasuerus, 169. 
Alexander, 155, 156. 
Alexander II, 84. 
Alexander III, 246. 
Alexander V, 59, 461. 
Alexander VI, 86, 411. 
Alexander VII, 86, 258, 299. 
Alexander VIII, 299. 
Alexander fulfilling prophecy, 217, 
Alexandrian Library, 440. 
Allah, 215, 352. 
Ambrose, 10. 
Amestris, 7, 169. 
Amos, key word to, 40. 
Anastasius II, 270. 
Antiochus, 152. 

Antiochus Epiphanes, 238, 289. 
Anzan (Ansan), 168. 
Aphrodite, 22. 
Apocrypha, 48, 74, 443. 
Apostles' Creed, 140, 141. 
Aquinas, Thomas, 480. 
Arabah, 165. 
Arabia, 372. 

Aramaic of Daniel, 153, 155. 
Aramaic language. 472. 
Archaeology, 88, 235, 371. 
Archelaus, 225, 227. 
Arminius, James, 17. 
Ararat, 195, 205. 
Artaxerxes, 74. 
Aryans, 399. 
Asherim, 22. 
Ashtoreth, 21. 
Asmonean Family, 239. 
Assumption of Virgin Mary, 484. 
Assurbanipal, 92, 372. 
Assyria, 357. 
Assyriology, 235. 
Astarte, 22, 160. 
Athanasius, 253. 
Attalus III, 251, 252. 
Augsburg Confession, 125, 142, 453. 
Augustine, 15, 79, 125, 198, 455. 
Augustinus de Ancona, 268, 270. 
Avignon, 462. 



Baal, 22, 32, 160, 484. 
Baalzebub, 33. 
Baal-Zephon, 181. 
Babel, 205, 217, 401. 
Babylon, 247, 358. 



Babylon, Jews in, 311. 

" Babylon the Great," 252. 

Babylon, Rome, 11. 

Babylon's cup, 250. 

Babylonian creation, 139. 

Babylonian cross, 145. 

Babylonian idolatry, 248. 

Babylonian pontiff, 251. 

Babylonian Sabbath, 450-452. 

Babylonian Talmud, 471. 

" Babylonish Captivity of the 

Church," 322. 
Baptism, 456. 
Barrow, Isaac, 378. 
Beelzebul, 23, 33. 
Bel, 26. 27, 32, 160. 
Bel, "The Confounder," 32. 
Bellarmine, Robert, 84, 296, 377, 

406, 409. 
Bel-Merodach, 27. 
Belshazzar, 29-31, 154, 372. 
Beltis, 484. 
Belus, 32. 
Benedict IX, 376. 
Benedict XII, 411. 
Benedict XIII, 376, 461. 
Benedict XIV, 82, 86, 128, 297, 299. 
Bengel, 429. 
Berengarius, 479. 
Bernice, 227. 

Berosus, 155, 156, 190, 248. 
Bible and Confucius, 130. 
Birth of Christ, time of, 301. 
Boniface VIII, 82, 246, 262, 267, 

274, 296, 376, 381, 388, 389, 408, 

447. 
Boniface IX, 461. 
Bossuet, 377. 
Brahma, 60. 

Brahmanism, 83, 235, 351. 
Breastplate of high priest, 285. 
" Breastplate of Judgment," 484. 
Bricks without straw, 166. 
Buddha, 55, 61, 351. 
Buddhism, 236. 
Buddist, Constantine, 60. 
Burnt offering, 360. 
Busenbaum, 296. 



Calendar, Jewish, 21, 93. 

Calixtus III, 270. 

Callistus, 269. 

Calvin, 23, 87, 184, 322, 323, 463, 

464. 
Calvinism, 18. 
Cambyses, 7, 30. 
Canon, 14, 15. 
Canon, Eponym, 90, 91. 
Canon, Jewish, 72. 
Canon of the African Synod, 197. 
Canon of Ptolemy, 91, 92. 
Canon, Sardican, 196, 376. 
Carchemish, 241, 242, 313. 



505 



506 



GENERAL INDEX 



Cardinals. College of, 385. 

Caste, 236. 

Catechism, Roman, 142-144, 446. 

Census of Jews, 198. 

Cestius 290 

Chalcedon, 28th Canon of, 379. 

Chariots, use of, 28. 

Charlemagne, 243, 245, 280. 

Charles V, 22, 84, 142, 160. 

Chaucer, 486. 

Chedorlaomer, 372. 

Christ, death of, 146. 

Christ, key to the Bible, 34. 

Christianity, prophecy a witness to, 
425. 

Chronicles, key word to, 37. 

Chrysostom, 10, 136. 

Circumcision, 163. 

Classicists (Humanists), 246. 

Clement I, 376. 

Clement II, 461. 

Clement III, 246. 

Clement V, 82, 480. 

Clement VII. 460, 461. 

Clement VIII, 86, 461. 

Clement IX, 258, 299. 

Clement X. 299. 410. 

Clement XI. 143. 258, 299. 

Clement XII. 299. 

Clement XIII, 298. 

Clement XIV. 62, 299. 

Clement of Alexandria, 444. 

Clementines, 81. 

Cleopatra, 441. 

Climate before the flood, 187. 

Clinton's " Fasti Hellenici," 155, 156. 

Cock crowing, 64. 

Code of Theodosius, 468. 

Codex Alexandrinus. 53. 

Codex Ephraemi, 54. 

Codex Vaticanus. 54. 

Colossians, key word to, 44. 

Commandments, perpetuity of, 319. 

Concubinage, 85. 

Confession of Faith, Belgic, 58. 

Confession of Faith, Church of Eng- 
land, 58. 

Confession of Faith, Congregational, 
58. 

Confession of Faith, Freewill Bap- 
tist, 58. 

Confession of Faith. French, 57. 

Confession of Faith, Methodist. 58. 

Confession of Faith, New Hampshire 
Baptist, 58. 

Confucius, 55. 

Confucianism, 55. 

Constantine. 131, 164, 197. 

Coptic versions, 51. 

Corinthians, key word to, 43. 

Corpus Juris, 81, 82. 

Council of Aries, 162. 

Council of Basle, 85, 220, 221, 270. 
271, 376. 

Council of Carthage, 79. 

Council of Chalcedon, 131, 196, 378. 

Council of Constance, 59, 85, 125. 
126, 271, 376, 461, 464. 

Council of Constantinople. 127, 270. 

Council of Ephesus, 131, 378. 

Council of Florence, 126. 221, 376. 

Council of Frankfort. 127. 

Council of Illiberis, 255, 256. 

Council of Laodicea, 15, 76, 79. 

Council of Lyons, 376. 



Council of Nicea, 77, 78, 80, 127. 

135, 162, 253, 255. 
Council of Pisa, 376, 461. 
Council of Thoulouse, 59. 
Council of Trent, 15. 73. 81. 83-87, 

126, 127, 134, 135, 141-144, 258, 

323, 328, 377, 392, 446, 479. 
Council, Lateran, 86, 126, 127, 
Council, Vatican, 84. 127, 134, 136. 

144, 259, 266, 377. 
Coverdale, Miles, 51. 
Cranmer Bible, 51. 
Creation, 174. 

Creation demonstrated, 175, 180. 
Creed, Apostles', 219. 
Creed, Athanasian, 219. 
Creed of Greek Catholic Church, 219. 
Creed, Nicene, 218. 
Creed of Pope Pius IV, 144. 
Criticism, higher and lower, 228. 
Crucifixion, 145. 
Crucifixion, date of, 93. 
Crucifixion, time of, 303. 
Crusaders, 386. 
Curia, 385. 
Cush, 400,~ 401. 
Cyprian, 34, 185, 196-198. 
Cyril of Jerusalem, 10, 79. 
Cyrus, 30, 31, 149, 154, 158, 205, 317. 

? 

Dagon, 248. 

Damasus, 252. 468. 

Damasus I, 376. 

Daniel, 28, 417, 422. 

Daniel, key word to, 39. 

Darius the Mede, 30. 

Dates, ancient, 95. 

Dates of the prophets, 438. 

Day, natural, 62, 63. 

Death of Stephen, 467. 

Decretals, 62. 

Decretals of Gregory IX, 81. 82. 

Decretum of Gratian, 81, 376, 

Degeneracy in Evolution, 176. 

Deism, 374. 

Deposing power of Pope, 408. 

Deuteronomy, key word to, 36. 

Development downward, 177. 

Diodorus Siculus, 90, 165, 358. 

Dioscorus, 380. 

Doctrine, Jesus Christ center of, 307. 

Domitian, 444. 

Donation of Constantine, 197, 281, 

282, 376. 
Douay Version, 51, 254. 
Drusilla, 227. 



Ebal, Mt, 209. 

Ecclesiastes, key word to, 38. 

Ecclesiastical history, writers of, 237. 

Ecumenical Councils, 132, 133. 

Edom, 316. 

Efficacy of sacraments, 455. 

Eichhorn, 230. 

El, 212. 

Elah, 211. 

Elam, 8, 9. 

Elion, 213. 

Elizabeth, Queen, 410. 

Elohim, 211, 212, 215-217. 

El-Shaddai, 212, 215. 



GENERAL. INDEX 



507 



Encyclicals, 61. 
Ensigns, Roman, 406. 
Ephesians, key word to, 43. 
Epiphanius, 163. 
Epistles of John, key word to, 43. 
Epistles, time of writing of, 34. 
Erasmus, 87. 
Esarhaddon, 22, 92, 372. 
Essenes, 403. 

Esther, book of, 148, 183, 372. 
Esther, key word to, 38. 
Eugenius III, 81. 
Eugenius IV, 126, 133. 
Eusebius, 91, 162. 444. 
Eutyches, 378, 380. 
Evenings, two, 64. 
Evil-Merodach. 29. 
Excavations, Babylonian, 31. 
Excavator, work of, 17. 
Extravagantes Communes, 82, 83. 
Exodus, key word to, 36. 
Ezekiel, key word to, 39. 
Ezra, key word to, 38. 



Feast of Tabernacles, 290. 
Felix V, 462. 
Fleury, 280. 
Forgeries, 275. 
Fossils, 206. 



Galatians, key word to, 43. 

Gallicanism. 136. 

Gemara, 471. 

Gemara, time of, 457. 

Genealogy of Herod, 226. 

Genealogy of Moses, 356. 

Genesis, key word to, 36. 

Geology, 173. 179. 

Gerlzim, Mt., 396, 457. 

Gerizim, temple of, 13, 239. 

Gibbons, Cardinal, 275. 

Gilgames, story of, 191, 194. 

"Glories of Mary, The," 254. 

Gnosticism, 164. 

Gobryas, 30. 

Gomer, 396, 399-401. 

Goshen, land of. 183. 

Gospels, time of writing of, 34. 

Gratian, 197. ^ ^^ „„^ 

Gratian, Decretum of, 81-83, 376. 

Greek language, influence of, 16. 

Greek papyri, 389-391. ^^^ ^^^ 

Gregory I, 10, 126, 280, 381, 382, 

411. 
Gregory II, 411. 
Gregory VII. 81. 84, 274, 291, 376. 

381, 383-385, 389, 408, 410. 
Gregory VIII, 246. 
Gregory IX, 81, 386, 410. 
Gregory XI, 411. 460, 461, 486. 
Gregory XII, 461. 
Gregory XIII, 293, 410, 411. 
Gregory XV, 258. ^^^ ^^^ 

Gregory XVI, 128. 258. 296, 447. 

Habakkuk, key word to, 41. 

Haggai, key word to, 41. 

Hagiographa. 331, 369, 370, 474. 

Ham, 396, 400. 

Haman, 170, 312. 

Hammurabi, 8. 

Hammurabi, Code of. 30, 235. 



Hebrew of Daniel, 153. 

Hebrews, key word to, 45. 

Hefele, Charles Joseph, 269. 

Hegira, era of, 71. 

Heresy, 462. 

Heretics, popes as, 270. 

Herod Agrippa, 227. 

Herod Antipas, 225, 227. 

Herod Philip. 225. 

Herodiars, 403 

Herodias, 227. 

Herodotus, 7, 32, 90. 

Hezekiah. 462. 

Higher criticism, 223. 

Hildebrand. 883, 384, 887, 388, 410. 

Hindoos, 183. 

Hippolytus, 163. 

History, apostolic, 115-124. 

History between the Testaments, 

105-108. 
History and evolution, 180. 
Historv, Gospel, 109-114. 
History, Old Testament, 97-104. 
Holy Roman Empire. 22, 159. 
Holy Spirit, witness to Christ, 305. 
Hollybushe, John, 51. 
Honorius I, 270, 272, 276. 
Honorius II, 246. 
Honorius III, 410, 411. 
Horses of Egypt, 167. 
Hosea, key word to. 40. 
Hosea, time of, 437. 
Host, adoration of, 481. 
Hour, 64. 
Huss, 125. 464. 
Hykos monarchs, 6. 



Idumea, 165. 

II, gate of, 25. 

Ilu, 212. 

Images, worship of. 253. 

Immaculate conception, 144, 267. 

447. 484. 
Immanuel. 444. 
In Coena Domini. 62. 
Index Librorum Expurgandorum, 86, 

87. 
Index Librorum Expurgatorum, 86. 

87. 
Index Librorum Prohibitorum, 86, 87. 
India, religions of. 235. 
Infallibility, 134, 136, 375, 446. 482. 
Infallibility of the Syllabus, 469. 
Infant baptism. 34. 
Innocent I, 196. 
Innocent III, 274, 324-326. 375, 381, 

385-388. 410. 411. 479. 
Innocent IV, 82, 268, 410, 411. 
Innocent VIII, 271. 411. 461. 
Innocent X. 143. 299, 408. 
Innocent XII. 299. 
Innocent XIII. 299. 
Inquisition, ]34. 
Inspiration, 17. 
Invasions in Judges. 314. 
Invocation of saints, 126. 
lonians, 401. 

Irenaeus. 34, 77. 161, 163, 444. 
Isaiah, key word to, 39. 
Isaiah, time of, 437. 
Isidore Mercator. 279. 
Tsidorian Decretals. 274. 
Israel, kings of, 354. 
Italic Version, 51, 



508 



GENERAL INDEX 



Jainism, 236. 

James, key word to, 45. 

James, vicar of Christ, 375. 

Janus, 33, 268. 

Japheth, 396, 400. 

Jason, high priest, 13. 

Javan, 398, 400. 401. 

Jehovah, 212, 214, 215. 

Jeremiah, key word to, 39. 

Jerome, 10, 52, 464. 

Jerusalem. 155, 184, 242, 243, 317, 

446, 475. 
Jerusalem, persecutions at, 13. 
•Jesus, time of trial of, 62. 
Jesus Christ, 211, 253. 
Jesus Christ, genealogy of, 198. 
Jesus Christ in Old Testament, 368. 
Jesus Christ, the offering, 359. 
Jesus Christ in prophecy, 423, 424. 
Jesus Christ, promise of. 240. 
Jesuits, 136, 271. 
Jews, idolatry of, 249. 
Job, key word to, 38. 
Joel, key word to, 40. 
John XII. 244. 
John XXII, 81-83, 268, 411. 
John XXIII, 376. 461. 
John Palseologus, 220. 
John, key word to, 45. 
Jonah, key word to, 40. 
Jordan valley, 16. 
Joseph, genealogy of, 200, 201. 
Joseph's visit to Egypt, 167. 
Josephus, 30, 63, 88, 90, 91, 155-157, 

223-225, 227, 358, 396, 403, 406, 

457. 
Joshua, key word to, 37. 
Judah, kings of, 355. 
Judas Maccabeus, 13, 324. 
Jude, key word to, 45. 
Judges, key word to, 37. 
Justification, 126. 
Justinian, 132, 449. 
Justin Martyr, 77, 146, 163. 



Kalends, Roman, 71. 

Keys of the kingdom, 408. 409. 

Khatti, 241. 

Kheta, 241. 

Kingdom of heaven, 371. 

Kings, key word to, 37. 

Koran, 56. 

Kuenen, 436. 



Lactantius, 10. 

Lady Day, 259. 

Lamentations, key word to, dU. 

Langton, Stephen, 324, 386. 

Law of offerings, 366. 

Lent, 161. 

Leo I, 377-381, 411. 

Leo III, 244, 245. 

Leo IX, 84, 219, 383, 411. 

Leo X, 87, 264, 407. 

Leo XIII, 86, 87, 276, 296, 411. 

Leviticus, key word to, 36. 

Liberius, 269. 

Liber Pontiflcalis, 281. ., .^-r 

Liberty of conscience condemned, 447.- 

Liberty of speech condemned, 447. 

Liguori, 254, 296, 377. 

" Living soul," 466. 

Lombards, 382. 



Lord's Supper, 453, 456. 
Luke, key word to, 42. 
Luke's Gospel, census in, 88. 
Luther, 23, 87. 125, 160, 265, 291, 

321, 322, 454. 
Luther on sacraments, 456. 



Madai, 397, 400, 401. 

Madonna, 250, 484. 

Magna Charta, 375. 

Magog, 397, 400. 

Malachi, key word to, 41. 

Manetho, 91, 92, 166, 242. 

Manning. Cardinal, 276. 

Manuscripts, Greek. 53. 

Manuscripts of Bible, 53. 

Manuscripts of Bible, Greek, 53. 

Manuscripts of New Testament, 35 

Maria Theresa, 298. 

Mark, key word to, 42. 

Martin V, 133, 376, 461. 

Mary, genealogy of, 198-200, 202-204. 

Mass, 126, 253. 

Massorah, 438. 

Matthew, key word to. 42. 

Maxim of Jesuits, 297. 

Meat offering, 361. 

Mediation of Pope, 411. 

Megiddo, 312. 

Melanchthon, 23, 322. 

Menephthah, 166, 182, 284, 372 

Menephthah II, 168. 

Merodach, 27, 29, 33. 

Mesha, king of Moab, 347. 

Messiah, 198, 332. 

Messiah, Babylonian, 250. 

Messianic prophecy, 415, 419, 425- 

432. 
Methodism, 18. 
Micah, key word to, 40. 
Ministry of Christ, length of, 302. 
Miracles, 12, 416. 
Mishna, 471. 
Mishna, time of, 457. 
Missing links in evolution, 175. 
" Mistakes " of New Testament, 17. 
Miter, papal, 413. 
Mithras, 183. 
Moabite Stone, 372, 465. 
Modern idolatry, 252. 
Mohammed, 55, 342. 
Mohammedanism, 235. 
Mohammedans, number of, 353. 
Mohler, 377. 

Monkeys to infidels, 178. 
Monothelite heresy, 270. 
Month, Hebrew, 64-66, 69. 
Monuments, 205. 
Monuments, testimony of, 9. 
Moral theology of Jesuits, 295. 
Mordecai. 170. 
Moses, 166. 
Mosheim, 405. 
Mother of God, 253, 254. 
Mt. Hor. 316. 

Miiller, Max, 177, 396, 399. 
Muratorian fragment, 74, 75. 
Mystery of iniquity, 407. 
Nabonassar, era of. 20, 25, 26. 
Nabonidus, 154, 372. 
Nabopolassar, 313. 
Nabuniad, 29, 30. 



GENERAIi INDEX 



509 



Nahum, key word to, 41. 

Napoleon, concordat of, 128. 

Natural selection, 175. 

Natures of Christ, 307. 

Nebo, 27. 

Nebuchadnezzar, 28, 29, 31, 95, 148- 

150, 156, 205, 289. 
Nebuchadrezzar, 93, 154, 372. 
Nehemiah, key word to, 38. 
Nestorius, 131. 
Ne Temere Decree, 329. 
New Testament canon, 75, 77-81. 
New Testament, Hebrew, 52. 
Newton, Sir Isaac, 18, 19. 
New Year, 70, 185. 
Nicanor, 324. 

Nicolas I, 218, 280-282, 376, 381, 382. 
Nicholas II, 84, 246. 384. 
Nicolas III, 268, 411. 
Nicolas V, 411. 
Nimrod, 357, 401, 443. 
Nin (Ninus), 249, 357. 
Nineveh, 313, 372, 401. 
Nirvana, 61. 
Noah, 195, 396. 
North, kings of, 238. 
North, significance of, 23. 
Numbers, key word to, 36. 
Nundinae (periods of eight days), 68. 



Obadiah, key word to, 40. 
Old Testament, 229. 
Olympiad, 19, 20, 91. 
Onias, high priest, 13. 
" Onion-coat " theory, 175. 
Origen, 15, 196. 
Otto the Great, 243, 244. 
Otto IV, 387. 



Paganism, 126, 253. 

Pantheon, Chaldean, 26. 

Parsees, 183, 487. 

Paschal III, 246. 

Paschasius Radbertus, 479. 

Passover, 93, 160, 224, 302. 

Patmos, 444. 

Patriarchs, length of life of, 94. 

Paul, chronology of, 96. 

Paul III, 142, 272^ 410. 

Paul IV, 86. 

Paul V, 258. 

Peace offering, 362. 

Pelagius II, 382. 

Pelayo, Alvaro (Pelagius), 268, 270. 

Penance, 261. 

Pentateuch, 231, 331, 367. 423, 457. 

Pentateuch, Samaritan, 52, 90. 

Pentecost, 69. 

Pergamos, 251, 252. 

Persia, 168. 

Pessimism, 60. 

Peter, key word to, 45. 

Peter, Second Epistle of, 76. 

Petrarch, 246. 

Pharaoh, 6, 168, 182, 183. 

Pharaoh-Meneptah, 24. 

Pharaoh Necho, 313. 

Pharisees, 184. 

Philemon, key word to, 44. 

Philip the Fair, 386, 388. 389. 

Philip of France, 246. 

Philippians, key word to, 44. 



Philo, Logos of, 319, 330. 

Philosophy, Grecian, 16. 

Phocas, Emperor, 381. 

Pi-hahiroth, 181. 

Pinches, Dr., 30. 

Pindar, 435. 

Pithom, 166. 

Pius IV, 83, 86, 127, 133, 141-143. 

Pius V, 133, 410. 

Pius VII, 300. 

Pius IX, 62, 127, 134, 135, 137, 144, 

257, 258. 276, 296, 408, 447. 
Pius X, 86, 87, 296. 
Polycarp, 162. 
Polyhistor, 28. 
Polytheism, 29. 
Polytheism, Babylon and Assyrian. 

26. 
Pontifiex Maximus, 251, 252, 412, 413. 
Pontius Pilate, 468. 
Pope, 220, 261, 277, 469. 
Pope and councils, 132. 
Pope, coronation of, 128. 
Pope, deposing power of, 385. 
Popillius and Antiochus, 13. 
Por (Pul), 477. 
Presbyter, 414. 
Priests, sacrificing, 414. 
Prophets, 331. 
Porphyry, 157. 
Priesthood, 277. 
Probabilism, 294. 
Protestants, 134, 142, 392, 442, 443, 

464. 
Protestantism, 134, 292, 300, 469. 
Proverbs, key word to. 38. 
Psalms, key word to, 38. 
Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, 375. 
Pseudo-Isldorian Decretals, 385, 388. 
Ptolemies, 238. 
Ptolemy's Canon, 20, 155. 
Pul (Por), 22, 477. 
Pur (Purim), 170. 
Purgatory, 126, 262, 265. 
Purim, 302. 



Quakers, 323. 
Quartodecimani, 161, 162. 
Queen of Heaven, 250. 
Queen of Sheba, 372 



Ra, 24, 168 

Ramses II, 168. 

Ramsay, Prof. Sir. W., 177. 

Rationalistic hypothesis of prophecy, 

420, 421. 
Reformers, 322. 
Reformers on sacraments, 456. 
Reformers, English, on Antichrist, 

11. 
Reformers, Protest of, 254. 
" Remonstrance " of 1610, 17. 
Rescript, 62. 
Resurrection, 304. 
Revelation, book of, 77, 78. 
Revelation, key word to, 46. 
Revelation, prophecies of, 266. 
Revelation, time of writing of, 34. 
Revolution produced by Christ, 309. 
Robbers' Council, 378. 
Rocks, ages of, 206. 
Roman priesthood, 412. 
Romans, key word to, 43. 



510 



generaij index 



Route of exodus, 181. 
Ruth, key word to, 37. 



Sabbath, 67, 69, 93, 163, 235. 

Sacraments, 126, 129. 

Sacred books of the East, 54. 

Sadducees, 403. 

Salamis, battle of, 18. 

Samaria, capture of, 372. 

Samaria, siege of, 283. 

Samaritan Old Testament, 50. 

Samaritans, 210, 393, 396, 406. 

Samuel, key word to, 37. 

Sanballat, 396. 

Sanhedrin, 50. 

Sarah (Abraham's wife), 5. 

Sardican Canon, 196, 376. 

Sargon, 22, 92, 241. 

Satan, seat of, 11. 

Scenery of the Revelation, 445. 

Scheme of Pentateuch, 395. 

Schism, Great, 487. 

Schleiermacher, 431, 432. 

Schoolmen, 260. 

Second commandment, 256. 

Seleucid era, 91. 

Sennacherib, 22, 92, 205, 239, 289, 

372 
Septuagint, 14, 46-50, 90, 140, 185, 

216, 313. 
Serpent, 460. 
Seven, in Bible. 56. 
Shaddai, 213. 
Shalmaneser, 22. 
Shalmaneser II, 92, 241. 
Shalmaneser III, 31. 
Shalmaneser IV, 283. 
Shem, 396. 401. 
Shishak, 372. 
Shushan (Susa), 168. 
Sibyls, 150. 
Sigismund, 85. 
Sieges of Jerusalem, 289. 
Silvester I, 197, 376. 
Simancas, 409. 
Sin ofiEering. 363. 
Sistine Chapel, 127. 
Site of Solomon's temple. 474. 
" Six hundred sixty-six," 444. 
Sixtus IV, 259. 
Sixtus V, 86, 377. 
Smalcald Articles, 142. 
" Societas Jesu," 292. 
Son, meaning of, 199. 
Song of Solomon, key word to, 39. 
Sonship, how counted, 31. 
South, significance of, 23. 
Spinoza, 374, 375. 
Stephen II, 244. 
Stephen IX, 84. 
Strabo, 90, 358, 398, 479. 
Structure of Old Testament, 36 <. 
Suarez, 296. 
Sunday, 162. 
Sun worship, 167. 
Suppression of Jesuits, 298. 
Syllabus, 447. 
Syriac Version, 50, 51. 
Syricius, 159. 

Tabernacle, 284. 
Tablets, contract, 31. 
Talmud, 331, 370. 



Tanis, 182. 

Targum, Chaldee, 47. 

Targums, 50, 153. 

" Taxes of the Apostolic Chancery," 

264. 
Temple, cleansing of, 152. 
Temple, day of capture of, 67. 
Temple, site of, 210. 
Temporal power of Pope, 482. 
Tenets of Sadducees, 457. 
Tertullian, 9, 34, 89, 163, 196. 
Testimony of prophecy, 418. 
Tetzel, 262, 263. 
Theme of Pentateuch, 394. 
Theocracy of Gregory VII, 385. 
Theodosius the Great, 131. 
Theodosius II, 131. 
Thermopylae, Hebrew, 239. 
Thessalonians, key word to, 44. 
Thoth, Egyptian, 20. 
" Three Chapters," 272. 
Thucydides, 19. 
Thummim, 483. 
Tiamat, 26. 
Tiara 128 

Tiglath-Pileser, 22, 30, 241, 442. 
Tiglath-Pileser I, 242. 
Tiglath-Pileser III, 92. 
Timothy, key word to, 44. 
Titus, 290. 

Titus, key word to, 44. 
Tlras, 398. 400. 
Torah, 47, 331. 
Tradition, 126. 
Translations of Bible. 54. 
Transubstantiation, 12, 126, 322. 
Treasury of merits, 260-262. 
Trespass offering, 365. 
Trinity, 247, 250. 
^ubal, 398, 400. 
Twelve, in Bible, 57. 
Tyndale, William, 51. 

Ullathorne, Bishop, Newman's Letter 

to, 273. 
Ultramontanism, 291. ^^_ 

"Unam Sanctam," 388, 389,408,447. 
TTniformity, theory of, 208. 
Unity of Genesis, 205. 
Unity of the Old Testament, 368. 
Universal (Ecumenical) Bishop, 382. 
Universal Priest, 10. 
Ur of the Chaldees, 5, 6. 205. 
Urban IV, 480. 
Urban VI, 460, 461. 
Urban VII. 299. 
Urban VIII, 410, 411. 
Ussher, 91, 167. 



Veda, 55. 

Vedanta, 373. 

Venus, 22. 

Venus Genetrix, 251. 

Vicar of Christ, 12, 409, 413. 

Vicar of Christ, James, 375. 

Vice-Christ, 9. 

Victor, 161. 

Victor II, 411. 

Victor IV, 246. 

Vigilius. 132, 269, 272. 

Virgin Mary, 254, 257, 258, 261, 267. 

446. 447. „ ,,„ 

Vulgate, 14, 50-53, 377, 443. 



GENERAL INDEX 



511 



Waldenses, 125. 

Watches of the night, 64. 

Week, Grecian, 71. 

Week, Jewish, 64, 67, 68. 

Wernz, Francis Xavier, 296. 

Wesley, John, 18. 

Word (Logos), meaning of, 319. 

Wycliflfe, John, 51, 125, 443. 

Xerxes, 7, 18, 169. 217, 312. 

Yahveh, 287. 



Year, Jewish, 65. 70. 
Yom Kippur, 185, 186. 
Yule Day, 89. 



Zechariah, key word to, 41. 
Zend-Avesta, 55. 
Zephaniah, key word to, 41. 
Zephyrinus, 269. 
Zoan, 182, 183. 
Zoroaster, 55. 
Zosimus. 196, 269. 
Zwingli, 23, 322. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: IVlay 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1> 



